From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:59:07 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Slab: Remove kmem_cache_t In-Reply-To: <456E36A7.2050401@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <456D0757.6050903@yahoo.com.au> <456D0FC4.4050704@yahoo.com.au> <20061128200619.67080e11.akpm@osdl.org> <456D1FDA.4040201@yahoo.com.au> <456E36A7.2050401@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org