On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Hmmm... At some point we should switch kmem_cache_create to pass a struct
> > containing all the parameters. Otherwise the API will blow up with
> > additional functions.
>
> Obviously I agree with you. I'm inclined to not let that delay Kees'
> patches; we can fix the few places that use this API later. At this
> point, my proposal for the ultimate form would be:
Right. Thats why I said "at some point"....
>
> struct kmem_cache_attr {
> const char name[32];
Want to avoid the string reference mess that occurred in the past?
Is that really necessary? But it would limit the size of the name.
> void (*ctor)(void *);
> unsigned int useroffset;
> unsigned int user_size;
> };
>
> kmem_create_cache_attr(const struct kmem_cache_attr *attr, unsigned int size,
> unsigned int align, slab_flags_t flags)
>
> (my rationale is that everything in attr should be const, but size, align
> and flags all get modified by the slab code).
Thought about putting all the parameters into the kmem_cache_attr struct.
So
struct kmem_cache_attr {
char *name;
size_t size;
size_t align;
slab_flags_t flags;
unsigned int useroffset;
unsinged int usersize;
void (*ctor)(void *);
kmem_isolate_func *isolate;
kmem_migrate_func *migrate;
...
}
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
