On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > But I still don't see the big reason for your objection. If other > allocator start using those bits, they would not be passed to > kmem_cache_alloc anyway, right? So what would be the big problem in > masking them out before it? > A slab allocator implementation may allow for additional bits that are currently not used or used for internal purposes by the current set of slab allocators to be passed in the unsigned long to kmem_cache_create() that would be a no-op on other allocators. It's implementation defined, so this masking should be done in the implementation, i.e. __kmem_cache_create(). For context, as many people who attended the kernel summit and LinuxCon are aware, a new slab allocator is going to be proposed soon that actually uses additional bits that aren't defined for all slab allocators. My opinion is that leaving unused bits and reserved bits to the implementation is the best software engineering practice. -- 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>