> > > > > > I suspect that he would like to keep the tracing. > > > > > > It might be worth trying the branches, given that they would be constant > > > and indexed by "i". The compiler might well remove the indirection. > > > > > > The compiler guys brag about doing so, which of course might or might > > > not have any correlation to a given compiler actually doing so. :-/ > > > > > > Having a vfree_bulk() might well be useful, but I would feel more > > > confidence in that if there were other callers of kfree_bulk(). > > > > > Hmm... I think replacing that with vfree_bulk() is a good idea though. > > In other words, get rid of kfree_bulk() in favor of vfree_bulk()? > kfree_bulk() does not understand vmalloc memory. vfree_bulk() should be implemented to release vmalloc's pointers. On i high level it will be used the same way as kfree_bulk() but for vmalloc ptrs. only. > > > But again, either way, future work as far as this series is concerned. > > > > > What do you mean: is concerned? > > Apologies for the strange English. How about this? > > "This series is OK as is. Any comments above did not prevent me from > taking these patches, but instead discuss possible future work." > That is perfectly clear to me :) > > We are planning to implement kfree_rcu() to be integrated directly into > > SLAB: SLAB, SLUB, SLOB. So, there are plenty of future work :) > > And I am glad that this is still the goal. ;-) > :) -- Vlad Rezki
