[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1936AB66@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:53:16 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@...wei.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Keping Chen <chenkeping@...wei.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mm/slub: fix a BUG_ON() when offlining a memory node
and CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is on
> This suggests that a call to early_kmem_cache_node_alloc was not needed
> because the per node structure already existed. Lets fix that instead.
Perhaps by just having one API for users to call? It seems odd to force users
to figure out whether they are called before some magic time during boot
and use the "early...()" call. Shouldn't we hide this sort of detail from them?
-Tony
--
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