On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > More than half of the kmem_cache_destroy() callsites are declining that > > > value by open-coding the NULL test. That's reality and we should recognize > > > it. > > > > Well that may just indicate that we need to have a look at those > > callsites and the reason there to use a special cache at all. > > This makes no sense. Go look at the code. > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/super25.c, for example. It's all > in the basic unwind/recover/exit code. That is screwed up code. I'd do that without the checks simply with a series of kmem_cache_destroys(). > > If the cache > > is just something that kmalloc can provide then why create a special > > cache. On the other hand if something special needs to be accomplished > > then it would make sense to have special processing on kmem_cache_destroy. > > This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about a basic "if > I created this cache then destroy it" operation. As you see in this code snipped you cannot continue if a certain operation during setup fails. At that point it is known which caches exist and therefore kmem_cache_destroy() can be called without the checks. > It's a common pattern. mm/ exists to serve client code and as a lot of > client code is doing this, we should move it into mm/ so as to serve > client code better. Doing this seems to encourage sloppy coding practices. -- 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>