| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill kmem_zone init |
| From: | Pekka J Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:05:14 +0200 (EET) |
| Cc: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20060321082037.A653275@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0603201501540.18684@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI> <20060321082037.A653275@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Nathan Scott wrote:
> Sorry, but thats just silly. Did you even look at the code
> around what you're changing (it has to do more than just wrap
> up slab calls)? So, NACK on this patch - it leaves the code
> very confused (half zoney, half slaby), and is just unhelpful
> code churn at the end of the day.
You're already using kmem_cache_destroy() mixed with the zone stuff so I
don't see your point. I would really prefer to feed small bits at a time
so is there any way I can sweet-talk you into merging the patch?
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Nathan Scott wrote:
> For your zalloc patch, you will need to duplicate the logic
> in kmem_zone_alloc into kmem_zone_zalloc in order to use that
> new zalloc interface you're introducing - which should be fine.
I am planning to kill the slab wrappers completely. The logic you're
referring to looks awful lot like GFP_NOFAIL with limiter. Any
reason we can't just use GFP_NOFAIL for those cases?
Pekka
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill kmem_zone init, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill kmem_zone init, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill kmem_zone init, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill kmem_zone init, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |