[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070723155603.f1b1a735.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:56:03 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERP to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > OK, well that was weird. So
> >
> > kmalloc(42, GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO);
> >
> > duplicates
> >
> > kzalloc(42, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Why do it both ways?
>
> Both ways? The latter *is* the former. That's how kzalloc() is implemented
> these days.
<looks>
So this:
/*
* Be lazy and only check for valid flags here, keeping it out of the
* critical path in kmem_cache_alloc().
*/
BUG_ON(flags & ~(GFP_DMA | __GFP_ZERO | GFP_LEVEL_MASK));
would no longer need the __GFP_ZERO. Ditto in slob's new_slab().
> Andrew - all these patches came through you. You didn't realize?
Well. I didn't memorise the past few months' 250-odd slab/slob/slub
patches..
My point is, I don't think we want some code doing
kmalloc(42, GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO) and some other code doing
kzalloc(42, GFP_KERNEL). But this patch does nothing to increase the
chances of that happening, so I'm happy.
-
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