From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7E96B0032 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id bs8so7852614wib.4 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wl10si3432285wjb.18.2015.02.11.12.18.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w62so5801462wes.12 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:18:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:18:07 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20150210194804.288708936@linux.com> <20150210194811.787556326@linux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: akpm@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo@lge.com, Jesper Dangaard Brouer On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > This patch is referencing functions that don't exist and can do so since > > it's not compiled, but I think this belongs in the next patch. I also > > think that this particular implementation may be slub-specific so I would > > have expected just a call to an allocator-defined > > __kmem_cache_alloc_array() here with i = __kmem_cache_alloc_array(). > > The implementation is generic and can be used in the same way for SLAB. > SLOB does not have these types of object though. > Ok, I didn't know if the slab implementation would follow the same format with the same callbacks or whether this would need to be cleaned up later. > > return 0 instead of using _HAVE_SLAB_ALLOCATOR_ARRAY_OPERATIONS at all. > > Ok that is a good idea. I'll just drop that macro and have all allocators > provide dummy functions. > > > > +#ifndef _HAVE_SLAB_ALLOCATOR_ARRAY_OPERATIONS > > > +void kmem_cache_free_array(struct kmem_cache *s, size_t nr, void **p) > > > +{ > > > + __kmem_cache_free_array(s, nr, p); > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free_array); > > > +#endif > > > + > > > > Hmm, not sure why the allocator would be required to do the > > EXPORT_SYMBOL() if it defines kmem_cache_free_array() itself. This > > Keeping the EXPORT with the definition is the custom as far as I could > tell. > If you do dummy functions for all the allocators, then this should be as simple as unconditionally defining kmem_cache_free_array() and doing EXPORT_SYMBOL() here and then using your current implementation of __kmem_cache_free_array() for mm/slab.c. -- 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