[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020612090602w5c7f3f9ay8e771763ea8843cf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:02:53 +0200
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, akpm@...l.org,
mpm@...enic.com, "Manfred Spraul" <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cleanup slab headers / API to allow easy addition of new slab allocators
Hi Christoph,
On 12/8/06, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> +#define SLAB_POISON 0x00000800UL /* DEBUG: Poison objects */
> +#define SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN 0x00002000UL /* Align objs on cache lines */
> +#define SLAB_CACHE_DMA 0x00004000UL /* Use GFP_DMA memory */
> +#define SLAB_MUST_HWCACHE_ALIGN 0x00008000UL /* Force alignment even if debuggin is active */
Please fix formatting while you're at it.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLAB
> +#include <linux/slab_def.h>
> +#else
> +
> +/*
> + * Fallback definitions for an allocator not wanting to provide
> + * its own optimized kmalloc definitions (like SLOB).
> + */
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NUMA) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB)
> +#error "SLAB fallback definitions not usable for NUMA or Slab debug"
Do we need this? Shouldn't we just make sure no one can enable
CONFIG_NUMA and CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB for non-compatible allocators?
> -static inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
> +void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
static inline?
> +void *kzalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
> +{
> + return __kzalloc(size, flags);
> +}
same here.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists