From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx165.postini.com [74.125.245.165]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08CD56B005A for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:30:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: RE: [PATCH] mm/slub: fix a BUG_ON() when offlining a memory node and CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is on In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1936AB66@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <1342543816-10853-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@huawei.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1936AB66@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Jiang Liu , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , Mel Gorman , Jianguo Wu , Jiang Liu , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , Keping Chen , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Luck, Tony wrote: > > This suggests that a call to early_kmem_cache_node_alloc was not needed > > because the per node structure already existed. Lets fix that instead. > > Perhaps by just having one API for users to call? It seems odd to force users > to figure out whether they are called before some magic time during boot > and use the "early...()" call. Shouldn't we hide this sort of detail from them? The early_ calls are internal to the allocator and not exposed to the user. -- 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