On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 05:31:51PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/11/22 13:07, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 01:25:11AM +0900, Ohhoon Kwon wrote:
> >> @@ -898,20 +900,6 @@ void __init create_kmalloc_caches(slab_flags_t flags)
> >>
> >> /* Kmalloc array is now usable */
> >> slab_state = UP;
> >> -
> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> >> - for (i = 0; i <= KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH; i++) {
> >> - struct kmem_cache *s = kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][i];
> >> -
> >> - if (s) {
> >> - kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_DMA][i] = create_kmalloc_cache(
> >> - kmalloc_info[i].name[KMALLOC_DMA],
> >> - kmalloc_info[i].size,
> >> - SLAB_CACHE_DMA | flags, 0,
> >> - kmalloc_info[i].size);
> >> - }
> >> - }
> >> -#endif
> >> }
> >> #endif /* !CONFIG_SLOB */
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks.
> Added to:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vbabka/slab.git/log/?h=for-5.19/refactor
>
> > BTW this patch may conflict with [1] (not merged yet)
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220405135758.774016-9-catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx/
>
> FYI Catalin, might want to base v2 on the above once the crypto side is
> solved. At cursory look it shouldn't be a significant conflict.
Thanks for the heads-up. I did wonder why this was a separate loop.
--
Catalin
