From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id s2so1795309uge for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:12:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84144f020611292312v573b9115tfd29aff49962ec97@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:12:29 +0200 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [RFC] Extract kmalloc.h and slob.h from slab.h In-Reply-To: <456E3ACE.4040804@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061129082650.GB12734@infradead.org> <456D4722.2010202@yahoo.com.au> <456E3ACE.4040804@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Christoph Lameter , Christoph Hellwig , akpm@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mpm@selenic.com, Manfred Spraul List-ID: On 11/30/06, Nick Piggin wrote: > The point is that it *is the same API*. Having the declarations for the slob > implementation in slob.h, and then including slab.h in slob.h seems completely > backwards. Agreed that it would be cleaner if we, for example, had that included either or depending on config. However, Christoph's split does make sense, the slob _implementation_ is completely different in the header. It doesn't have any of the inlining tricks we do for slab. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org