Re: Slab: Remove kmem_cache_t

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 
> > Because they are fundamentally _different_ on different architectures.
> 
> So is struct kmem_cache for slab vs slob.

No. It's always the same. Did you read the emails I send out?

I explicitly said that it doesn't matter if the _members_ change. That's 
something else, and a typedef doesn't help at all.

A "struct kmem_cache" is always a "struct kmem_cache". I don't understand 
why you're even arguing.

In contrast, a "pdt_t" can be "unsigned long" or an anonymous struct, or 
anything else. A "u64" can be "unsigned long long" or "unsigned long" 
depending on architecture, etc. But a "struct kmem_cache" is always a 
"struct kmem_cache". 

There is ZERO advantage to a typedef here. And when there is zero 
advantage, you shouldn't use a typedef because of the _negatives_ 
associated with it that have been discussed.

So why use a typedef? 

			Linus

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>