On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:33:42PM +0800, kunwu.chan@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Use the KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of kmem_cache_create() to simplify
> the creation of SLAB caches when the default values are used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c
> index 66a17910d021..6d957fcc17f2 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c
> @@ -1143,9 +1143,7 @@ xfs_defer_resources_rele(
> static inline int __init
> xfs_defer_init_cache(void)
> {
> - xfs_defer_pending_cache = kmem_cache_create("xfs_defer_pending",
> - sizeof(struct xfs_defer_pending),
> - 0, 0, NULL);
> + xfs_defer_pending_cache = KMEM_CACHE(xfs_defer_pending, 0);
>
> return xfs_defer_pending_cache != NULL ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> }
Please stop wasting our time by trying to make changes that have
already been rejected. I gave you good reasons last time for why we
aren't going to make this change in XFS, and now you've forced
Darrick to waste time repeating all those same reasons. You did not
respond to my review comments last time, and now you are posting
more patches that make the same rejected change.
PLease listen to the feedback you are given. Indeed, please respond
and acknowledge that you have read and understood the feedback you
have been given, otherwise I'll consider anything from this email
address as "just another annoying bot" and killfile it.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
