On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > This patch is referencing functions that don't exist and can do so since
> > it's not compiled, but I think this belongs in the next patch. I also
> > think that this particular implementation may be slub-specific so I would
> > have expected just a call to an allocator-defined
> > __kmem_cache_alloc_array() here with i = __kmem_cache_alloc_array().
>
> The implementation is generic and can be used in the same way for SLAB.
> SLOB does not have these types of object though.
>
Ok, I didn't know if the slab implementation would follow the same format
with the same callbacks or whether this would need to be cleaned up later.
> > return 0 instead of using _HAVE_SLAB_ALLOCATOR_ARRAY_OPERATIONS at all.
>
> Ok that is a good idea. I'll just drop that macro and have all allocators
> provide dummy functions.
>
> > > +#ifndef _HAVE_SLAB_ALLOCATOR_ARRAY_OPERATIONS
> > > +void kmem_cache_free_array(struct kmem_cache *s, size_t nr, void **p)
> > > +{
> > > + __kmem_cache_free_array(s, nr, p);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free_array);
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> >
> > Hmm, not sure why the allocator would be required to do the
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL() if it defines kmem_cache_free_array() itself. This
>
> Keeping the EXPORT with the definition is the custom as far as I could
> tell.
>
If you do dummy functions for all the allocators, then this should be as
simple as unconditionally defining kmem_cache_free_array() and doing
EXPORT_SYMBOL() here and then using your current implementation of
__kmem_cache_free_array() for mm/slab.c.
--
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>