[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0904231854130.26300@qirst.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:55:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slub: add
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-slab
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> I'm more concerned with the userspace API. You're comfortable with
> letting userspace determine what allocator the kernel is using either by
> testing for the presence of certain slub or slqb-specific files or
> checking the config?
Why would userspace have to test? If the fields have the same semantics
then we are fine.
> That should be fine since there's parity among the files that both
> allocators share, but seems fragile if an allocator adds a file that was
> previously only applicable to the other or the API happens to change.
Right. The newly added file must not be in use by another allocator.
> My thinking was that /sys/kernel/slqb would be a permanent reference point
> that userspace could easily test to determine what API is available.
The API is hopefully generic enought to accomodate all allocators.
--
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