On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:11:11AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:50:33AM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Hi Darrick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but I'll believe that when I see it. And given that Christoph > > > > > Lameter seems totally opposed to the idea, I think we should keep our > > > > > silly wrapper for a while to see if they don't accidentally revert it or > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I don't have any plans to do it now in this series or in a very near > > > > future, I just used the email to share the idea :P > > > > > > Eh, well, FWIW I took a second look at all the kvfree/kfree and decided > > > that the usage was correct. For future reference, please do the > > > straight change as one patch and straighten out the usages as a separate > > > patch. > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you meant by 'straight change' and 'straighten out'. > > > > Do you mean to do send a single patch with only the changes made by the > > 'find&replace' command, followed up by a kfree() -> kvfree() where appropriate? > > Er, the opposite in this case -- Patch 1 replaces all the kmem_free > calls with kvfree calls (because that's what kmem_free did). Patch 2 > then changes the kvfree calls to kfree calls, but only for the cases > where we kmalloc'd the memory. Makes perfect sense. Thanks, I'll ensure to do that next time. > > --D > > > Cheers. > > > > > In any case it seemed to test ok over the weekend (and still seems ok > > > with your series from today), so... > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos > > > -- Carlos
