On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:26:11 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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(). So go and review some of the many other callers which do this. -- 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>