On 09/27/2012 12:07 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Have a common naming between both slab caches for future changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Index: linux/include/linux/slab_def.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/slab_def.h 2012-09-19 09:21:35.811415438 -0500
> +++ linux/include/linux/slab_def.h 2012-09-19 09:21:37.499450510 -0500
> @@ -88,16 +88,13 @@ struct kmem_cache {
> * We still use [NR_CPUS] and not [1] or [0] because cache_cache
> * is statically defined, so we reserve the max number of cpus.
> */
> - struct kmem_cache_node **nodelists;
> + struct kmem_cache_node **node;
> struct array_cache *array[NR_CPUS + MAX_NUMNODES];
> /*
> * Do not add fields after array[]
> */
> };
>
> -extern struct kmem_cache *cs_cachep[PAGE_SHIFT + MAX_ORDER];
> -extern struct kmem_cache *cs_dmacachep[PAGE_SHIFT + MAX_ORDER];
> -
>
> void *kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *, gfp_t);
> void *__kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags);
>
> @@ -132,10 +129,10 @@ static __always_inline void *kmalloc(siz
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> if (flags & GFP_DMA)
> - cachep = cs_dmacachep[i];
> + cachep = kmalloc_dma_caches[i];
> else
You had just changed this to those new names in patch 7. Why don't you
change it directly to kmalloc_{,dma}_caches ?
--
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>