[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120522183119.GA24107@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:31:19 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: use unsigned long instead of void *
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:42:10AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 09:19 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>
> > On 05/20/2012 09:23 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> >> We should use unsigned long as handle instead of void * to avoid any
> >> confusion. Without this, users may just treat zs_malloc return value as
> >> a pointer and try to deference it.
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't have agreed with you about the need for this change as people
> > should understand a void * to be the address of some data with unknown
> > structure.
> >
> > However, I recently discussed with Dan regarding his RAMster project
> > where he assumed that the void * would be an address, and as such,
> > 4-byte aligned. So he has masked two bits into the two LSBs of the
> > handle for RAMster, which doesn't work with zsmalloc since the handle is
> > not an address.
> >
> > So really we do need to convey as explicitly as possible to the user
> > that the handle is an _opaque_ value about which no assumption can be made.
>
>
> Wasn't really clear here. All that to say, I think we do need this patch.
That sounds like an Acked-by ?
>
> Thanks,
> Seth
--
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