On Sat, 03 Feb 2024, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024, at 3:19, Kunwu Chan wrote:
>
> > Use the new KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of direct kmem_cache_create
> > to simplify the creation of SLAB caches.
> > Make the code cleaner and more readable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfsd/nfscache.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c b/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c
> > index 5c1a4a0aa605..64ce0cc22197 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfscache.c
> > @@ -166,8 +166,7 @@ nfsd_reply_cache_free(struct nfsd_drc_bucket *b, struct nfsd_cacherep *rp,
> >
> > int nfsd_drc_slab_create(void)
> > {
> > - drc_slab = kmem_cache_create("nfsd_drc",
> > - sizeof(struct nfsd_cacherep), 0, 0, NULL);
> > + drc_slab = KMEM_CACHE(nfsd_cacherep, 0);
> > return drc_slab ? 0: -ENOMEM;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.2
>
> I don't agree that the code is cleaner or more readable like this. I really
> dislike having to parse through the extra "simplification" to see what's
> actually being called and sent.
>
> Just my .02 worth.
>
In general I agree that wrappers like this can hinder as much as they
help - if not more.
In this particular case it doesn't seem to bother me. This is probably
because it is only used in initialisation code and I don't look at that
nearly as much as code that uses the initialised things.
Initialisation/cleanup code often has a lot of boilerplate which can
make it look messy. Reducing that, which I think this patch helps with,
can be a good thing.
So I agree that we should be cautious about using (or creating) new
wrapper macros, but in this case I am mildly in favour.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
