On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:55:17 +0800 Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Andrew Morton
>> >>
>> >> Also, a slightly better implementation would be
>> >>
>> >> static inline void * vmalloc_node_flags(unsigned long size, gfp_t flags)
>> >> {
>> >> Â Â Â Âreturn Âvmalloc_node(size, 1, flags, PAGE_KERNEL, -1,
>> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â builtin_return_address(0));
>> >> }
>>
>> Is this better? might Âvmalloc_node_flags would be used by other than vmalloc?
>>
>> static inline void * vmalloc_node_flags(unsigned long size, int node,
>> gfp_t flags)
>
> I have no strong opinions, really. ÂIf we add more and more arguments
> to vmalloc_node_flags() it ends up looking like vmalloc_node(), so we
> may as well just call vmalloc_node(). ÂDo whatever feels good ;)
Ok, thanks.
Then I would prefer add 'node' argument due to the function name of
vmalloc_node_flags
--
Regards
dave
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href