On 5/10/12 10:02 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:03:19AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
On 05/10/2012 05:19 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:24:54AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
On 05/04/2012 12:23 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On 05/03/2012 08:32 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
On 5/3/12 2:40 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
We should use zs_handle instead of void * to avoid any
confusion. Without this, users may just treat zs_malloc return value as
a pointer and try to deference it.
Cc: Dan Magenheimer<dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk<konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim<minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/zcache/zcache-main.c | 8 ++++----
drivers/staging/zram/zram_drv.c | 8 ++++----
drivers/staging/zram/zram_drv.h | 2 +-
drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c | 28
++++++++++++++--------------
drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc.h | 15 +++++++++++----
5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
This was a long pending change. Thanks!
The reason I hadn't done it before is that it introduces a checkpatch
warning:
WARNING: do not add new typedefs
#303: FILE: drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc.h:19:
+typedef void * zs_handle;
Yes. I did it but I think we are (a) of chapter 5: Typedefs in Documentation/CodingStyle.
(a) totally opaque objects (where the typedef is actively used to _hide_
what the object is).
No?
No.
Don't add new typedefs to the kernel. Just use a structure if you need
to.
I tried it but failed because there were already tightly coupling between [zcache|zram]
and zsmalloc.
They already knows handle's internal well so they used it as pointer, even zcache keeps
handle's value as some key in tmem_put and tmem_get
AFAIK, ramster also will use zsmalloc sooner or later and add more coupling codes. Sigh.
Please fix it as soon as possible.
Dan, Seth
Any ideas?
struct zs {
void *ptr;
};
And pass that structure around?
A minor problem is that we store this handle value in a radix tree node.
If we wrap it as a struct, then we will not be able to store it directly
in the node -- the node will have to point to a 'struct zs'. This will
unnecessarily waste sizeof(void *) for every object stored.
We could 'memcpy' struct zs to a void * and then store that directly in
the radix node but not sure if that would be less ugly than just
returning the handle as a void * as is done currently.
Thanks,
Nitin
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>