Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, David Rientjes wrote: > >> NODEMASK_ALLOC(x, m) assumes x is a type of struct, which is >> unnecessary. >> It's perfectly reasonable to use this macro to allocate a nodemask_t, >> which is anonymous, either dynamically or on the stack depending on >> NODES_SHIFT. > > There is currently only one user of NODEMASK_ALLOC which is > NODEMASK_SCRATCH. > yes. > Can we generalize the functionality here? The macro is basically choosing > between a slab allocation or a stack allocation depending on the > configured system size. > > NUMA_COND__ALLOC(<type>, <min numa nodes for not using stack>, > <variablename>) > > or so? > sounds reasonable. It seems cpumask has ifdef CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK > Its likely that one way want to allocate other structures on the stack > that may get too big if large systems need to be supported. > maybe using the same style as cpumask will be reasonable. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
