Hi Ingo,
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 10:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.
Is it a big problem, though? We could do the s/PAGE_SIZE/SLUB_MAX_SIZE/g
rename as a separate preparational patch (without any of the functional
changes) and see if Linus merges it to mainline...
Pekka
--
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
