On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 09:02:00PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:34PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 06:17:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > So it is OK to kvmalloc() something and pass it to either kfree() or
> > > kvfree(), and it had better be OK to kvmalloc() something and pass it
> > > to kvfree().
> > >
> > > Is it OK to kmalloc() something and pass it to kvfree()?
> >
> > Yes, it absolutely is.
> >
> > void kvfree(const void *addr)
> > {
> > if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
> > vfree(addr);
> > else
> > kfree(addr);
> > }
> >
> > > If so, is it really useful to have two different names here, that is,
> > > both kfree_rcu() and kvfree_rcu()?
> >
> > I think it's handy to have all three of kvfree_rcu(), kfree_rcu() and
> > vfree_rcu() available in the API for the symmetry of calling kmalloc()
> > / kfree_rcu().
> >
> > Personally, I would like us to rename kvfree() to just free(), and have
> > malloc(x) be an alias to kvmalloc(x, GFP_KERNEL), but I haven't won that
> > fight yet.
>
> But why not just have the existing kfree_rcu() API cover both kmalloc()
> and kvmalloc()? Perhaps I am not in the right forums, but I am not hearing
> anyone arguing that the RCU API has too few members. ;-)
I don't have any problem with having just `kvfree_rcu`, but having just
`kfree_rcu` seems confusingly asymmetric.
(Also, count me in favor of having just one "free" function, too.)
--
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>
