On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:50:08AM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > > > > > BTW: What about a checkpatch.pl rule to detect such a misuse of kmalloc()? > > > We could grep for "k[mzc]alloc(GFP_". > > > > Make sure to ignore bio_kmalloc (which has reverse argument order to kmalloc, ugh) > > > > Hmmm, maybe we should "fix" the argument order of bio_kmalloc(). > But as this function is exported we'd silently break some out-of-tree > kernel modules.... > Or we could fix it noisily by renaming the function kmalloc_bio() and fixing the argument order. That will still break out-of-tree modules, but at least it won't break them silently... Or we could introduce kmalloc_bio() with fixed argument order, fix all in-kernel users and mark bio_kmalloc() deprecated with a note that it'll go away by 3.6 or thereabouts... I'd be happy to prepare a patch series doing that if it's wanted...? -- Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please.
