Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] slab: create kmem_cache_create() compatibility layer

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/4/24 13:38, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:50:28PM GMT, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 9/4/24 11:45, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:14:24AM GMT, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:20:53PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> >> > Use _Generic() to create a compatibility layer that type switches on the
>> >> > third argument to either call __kmem_cache_create() or
>> >> > __kmem_cache_create_args(). This can be kept in place until all callers
>> >> > have been ported to struct kmem_cache_args.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> 
>> >> Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> 
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  include/linux/slab.h | 13 ++++++++++---
>> >> >  mm/slab_common.c     | 10 +++++-----
>> >> >  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> >> > 
>> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
>> >> > index aced16a08700..4292d67094c3 100644
>> >> > --- a/include/linux/slab.h
>> >> > +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
>> >> > @@ -261,9 +261,10 @@ struct kmem_cache *__kmem_cache_create_args(const char *name,
>> >> >  					    unsigned int object_size,
>> >> >  					    struct kmem_cache_args *args,
>> >> >  					    slab_flags_t flags);
>> >> > -struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, unsigned int size,
>> >> > -			unsigned int align, slab_flags_t flags,
>> >> > -			void (*ctor)(void *));
>> >> > +
>> >> > +struct kmem_cache *__kmem_cache_create(const char *name, unsigned int size,
>> >> > +				       unsigned int align, slab_flags_t flags,
>> >> > +				       void (*ctor)(void *));
>> >> 
>> >> As I said earlier, this can become _kmem_cache_create and
>> >> __kmem_cache_create_args can be __kmem_cache_create from the beginning.
>> 
>> I didn't notice an answer to this suggestion? Even if it's just that you
>> don't think it's worth the rewrite, or it's not possible because X Y Z.
>> Thanks.
> 
> I'm confused. I sent two patches as a reply to the thread plus the
> answer below and there's two patches in v3 that you can use or drop.

Right, that's the part below. But the suggestion above, and also in Mike's
reply to 02/12 was AFAICS to rename __kmem_cache_create_args to
__kmem_cache_create (since patch 02) and here __kmem_cache_create to
_kmem_cache_create. It just seemed odd to see no reaction to that (did I
miss or not receive it?).

>> 
>> >> And as a followup cleanup both kmem_cache_create_usercopy() and
>> >> kmem_cache_create() can be made static inlines.
>> > 
>> > Seems an ok suggestion to me. See the two patches I sent out now.
>> 





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux