On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:17:01PM -0600, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > Draft patch of how the data structs could change. kmem_cache_attr is read
> > only.
>
> Looks good. Although I would add Kees' user feature:
Sure I tried to do this quickly so that the basic struct changes are
visible.
> And I'd start with
> +struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create_attr(const kmem_cache_attr *);
>
> leaving the old kmem_cache_create to kmalloc a kmem_cache_attr and
> initialise it.
Well at some point we should convert the callers by putting the
definitions into const kmem_cache_attr initializations. That way
the callbacks function pointers are safe.
> Can we also do something like this?
>
> -#define KMEM_CACHE(__struct, __flags) kmem_cache_create(#__struct,\
> - sizeof(struct __struct), __alignof__(struct __struct),\
> - (__flags), NULL)
> +#define KMEM_CACHE(__struct, __flags) ({ \
> + const struct kmem_cache_attr kca ## __stringify(__struct) = { \
> + .name = #__struct, \
> + .size = sizeof(struct __struct), \
> + .align = __alignof__(struct __struct), \
> + .flags = (__flags), \
> + }; \
> + kmem_cache_create_attr(&kca ## __stringify(__struct)); \
> +})
>
> That way we won't need to convert any of those users.
Yep thats what I was planning.
--
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>
