On 10/13/21 01:22, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:32:25PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 10/12/2021 10:43 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:43:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:07:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: >> >> >> >> I audited the entire xfs (kernel) codebase and didn't find any other >> >> usage errors. Thanks for the patch; I'll apply it to for-next. >> >> Which patch, the one that started this thread and uses kmem_cache_free() instead >> of kfree()? I thought we said it's not the best way? > > It's probably better to fix slob to be able to tell that a kmem_free'd > object actually belongs to a cache and should get freed that way, just > like its larger sl[ua]b cousins. Agreed. Rustam, do you still plan to do that? > However, even if that does come to pass, anybody /else/ who wants to > start(?) using XFS on a SLOB system will need this patch to fix the > minor papercut. Now that I've checked the rest of the codebase, I don't > find it reasonable to make XFS mutually exclusive with SLOB over two > instances of slab cache misuse. Hence the RVB. :) Ok. I was just wondering because Dave's first reply was that actually you'll need to expand the use of kfree() instead of kmem_cache_free().
