On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 16:08 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/23/2012 03:46 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > >> We can't predict how slab will be extended in the future and this affects > >> > anything created before g_cpucache_cpu<= EARLY. This would introduce the > >> > first problem with destroying such caches and is unnecessary if a > >> > workaround exists. > > These problems seem to indicate that the slab behaviour: expecting the > > string to exist for the lifetime of the cache so there's no need to copy > > it might be better. > > > > This must be the behaviour all users of kmem_cache_create() expect > > anyway, since all enterprise distributions use slab and they're not > > getting bugs reported in this area. > > > > So, why not simply patch slab to rely on the string lifetime being the > > cache lifetime (or beyond) and therefore not having it take a copy? > > > You mean patch slub? slub is the one that takes a copy currently. Yes ... a one letter typo. James -- 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>