On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:15:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 11:02 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > This seems > > likely to break in subtle ways if we ever change one of those constants > > to not be a multiple of a large enough power of 2. And makes the memory > > handling a little more obscure. I'd rather just allocate those > > separately if that's the choice. > > I do not see why it would break, the only limit we have is the total > size of the kmembuf. Oh, just because the svc_cred at the end wouldn't be aligned nicely any more. Doesn't that bother some architectures? > > Whatever, I don't really care how the various xdr_netobj->data's are > > allocated, honestly there's no crusade to eliminate kmalloc()'s, I'll > > only object in a case (like the struct svc_cred field above) where it > > seems obviously unnecessary. > > Ok, so what should I do ? > I can remove the static allocation and let the code allocate the data > with kmalloc, in the xdr unmarshalling code. > Whatever you like best. Just embed the svc_cred: > > - struct svc_cred *creds; > > + struct svc_cred creds; and handle the rest whichever way seems cleanest to you. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
