On 5/26/2021 4:33 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5/25/21 1:54 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 02:27:15PM +0530, Faiyaz Mohammed wrote: >>>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c >>>>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c >>>>> @@ -455,6 +455,9 @@ static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work) >>>>> #else >>>>> slab_kmem_cache_release(s); >>>>> #endif >>>>> +#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_DEBUGFS >>>>> + debugfs_slab_release(s); >>>>> +#endif >>>> >>>> Why do you need these #ifdef if your slub_dev.h file already provides an >>>> "empty" function for this? >>>> >>> We are not including slub_def.h directly. mm/slab.h includes the >>> slub_def.h if CONFIG_SLUB enable, >>> >>> from mm/slab.h >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SLAB >>> #include <linux/slab_def.h> >>> #endif >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB >>> #include <linux/slub_def.h> >>> #endif >>> >>> so if CONFIG_SLAB is enable then mm/slab.h includes slab_def.h, to avoid >>> undefined reference error added SLAB_SUPPORTS_DEBUGFS like >>> SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS. >> >> Ick, ok, messy code, I'll stop complaining now if this really is the >> only way to do it (still feels wrong to me...) > > How about simply replicating the empty function in > include/linux/slab_def.h > Yes, we can add empty function in include/linux/slab_def.h. I will add in next patch version. > We could do the same with SYSFS, except the SLAB (and SLUB w/o SYSFS) versions > of sysfs_slab_release() would not be empty, but just call > slab_kmem_cache_release(s); > Then we could get rid of the #ifdef's completely? > Is it okay, if I raise separate patch for sysfs by adding empty function in slab_def.h? Thanks and regards, Mohammed Faiyaz >> greg k-h >> >
