On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:18:46 -0800 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Do we need to be able to free any of those objects in order to rename > kfree_rcu() to just free_rcu()? I'm just nervous about tightly coupling free_rcu() with all the *free() from the memory management system. I've been burnt in the past by doing such things. What's the down side of having a way of matching *free_rcu() with all the *free()s? I think it's easier to understand, and rcu doesn't need to worry about changes of *free() code. To me: kfree_rcu(x); is just a quick way of doing 'kfree(x)' after a synchronize_rcu() call. But a "free_rcu(x)", is something I have to think about, because I don't know from the name exactly what it is doing. I know this may sound a bit bike shedding, but the less I need to think about how other sub systems work, the easier it is to concentrate on my own sub system. -- Steve -- 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>
