Hi David, On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:18 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> The bug was introduced in commit 4052147c0afa >> "mm, slab: Match SLAB and SLUB kmem_cache_alloc_xxx_trace() prototype". >> > > This isn't a candidate for kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, these are > patches that are one of Pekka's branches and would never make it to Linus' > tree in this form. > >> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > So now we have this for SLAB: > > extern void *kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace(size_t size, > struct kmem_cache *cachep, > gfp_t flags, > int nodeid); > > and this for SLUB: > > extern void *kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace(struct kmem_cache *s, > gfp_t gfpflags, > int node, size_t size); > > Would you like to send a follow-up patch to make these the same? (My > opinion is that the SLUB variant is the correct order.) Yes. I just asked Pekka to revert this patch altogether. The original patch was meant to match SLAB and SLUB, and this fix should maintain that. But instead I fix it the wrong way. I'll send another one. Sorry for the mess, Ezequiel. -- 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>