On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:41:07 -0600 (CST)
Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > I really like the idea of making it able to free kmalloc'ed objects.
> > But I hate to change the API again... (I do have a use-case in the
> > network stack where I could use this feature).
>
> Now is the time to fix the API since its not that much in use yet if at
> all.
Lets start the naming thread/flame (while waiting for my flight ;-))
If we drop the "kmem_cache *s" parameter from kmem_cache_free_bulk(),
and also make it handle kmalloc'ed objects. Why should we name it
"kmem_cache_free_bulk"? ... what about naming it kfree_bulk() ???
Or should we keep the name to have a symmetric API
kmem_cache_{alloc,free}_bulk() call convention?
I'm undecided...
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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>