On Sat, 2 May 2015, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > > On May 2, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > Summarize OBD_CPT_ALLOC_GFP, OBD_CPT_ALLOC, and OBD_CPT_ALLOC_PTR as a > > function, obd_cpt_alloc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Some questions: Is the name OK? Is the NULL test needed? If not, should > > the call to kzalloc_node with the call to cfs_cpt_spread_node just be > > inlined into the call sites? > > I think we don't need this function at all, we can use kzalloc/kzalloc_node directly with cfs_cpt_spread_node call in. So everywhere the CPT macro is called, it is known that the value is not NULL? I looked at some call sites, but it's not obvious to determine that. > What we do need is obd_cpt_alloc_large similar to how we need > obd_alloc_large (I know I still owe you a proper patch with that). The > only differences between the two would then be passing down of the cpt > (and it's use) or not. I saw that patch. Thanks. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
