On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 04:44:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 03:33:30PM GMT, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > 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?). > > Oh, I see. I read it as a expressing taste and so I didn't bother > replying. And I really dislike single underscore function names so I > would like to avoid it and it also seems more confusing to me. Heh, not quite. I don't like kmem_cache_create_args essentially becoming a replacement for kmem_cache_create* and I'd prefer __kmem_cache_create naming. As for the single underscore, I don't have strong feelings about it, but I do think that it should be renamed to something else than __kmem_cache_create to leave __kmem_cache_create for the core function. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
