On 07/05/2012 05:41 AM, Li Zhong wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 16:40 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 07/04/2012 01:00 PM, Li Zhong wrote: >>> On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 15:36 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: >>>>> Looking through the emails it seems that there is an issue with alias >>>>> strings. >>> To be more precise, there seems no big issue currently. I just wanted to >>> make following usage of kmem_cache_create (SLUB) possible: >>> >>> name = some string kmalloced >>> kmem_cache_create(name, ...) >>> kfree(name); >> >> Out of curiosity: Why? >> This is not (currently) possible with the other allocators (may change >> with christoph's unification patches), so you would be making your code >> slub-dependent. >> > > For slub itself, I think it's not good that: in some cases, the name > string could be kfreed ( if it was kmalloced ) immediately after calling > the cache create; in some other case, the name string needs to be kept > valid until some init calls finished. > > I agree with you that it would make the code slub-dependent, so I'm now > working on the consistency of the other allocators regarding this name > string duplicating thing. If you really need to kfree the string, or even if it is easier for you this way, it can be done. As a matter of fact, this is the case for me. Just that your patch is not enough. Christoph has a patch that makes this behavior consistent over all allocators. This just needs to be pushed again to the tree. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>