* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:57:28 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > @@@ -2723,18 -2689,9 +2727,19 @@@ static void *kmalloc_large_node(size_t
> > void *__kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > {
> > struct kmem_cache *s;
> > + void *ret;
> >
> > - if (unlikely(size > SLUB_MAX_SIZE))
> > - return kmalloc_large_node(size, flags, node);
> > ++ if (unlikely(size > SLUB_MAX_SIZE)) {
> > + if (unlikely(size > PAGE_SIZE)) {
>
> Except I screwed that up. I meant to delete the last line
> above. I will add a patch to the end of linux-next for today.
Hm, i'd love to eliminate the conflict, but it would either mean
us to pull the slab tree into the tracing tree, or the other way
around - and both have quite many items queued up to make this
impractical.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
