On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 12:23 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > 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. Sorry, I didn't know that. Seems I don't need to continue the half-done work in slab. If possible, would you please give me a link of the patch? Thank you. > 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>