[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140702003952.GA9972@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:39:52 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] slab: move up code to get kmem_cache_node in
free_block()
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 03:21:21PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > node isn't changed, so we don't need to retreive this structure
> > everytime we move the object. Maybe compiler do this optimization,
> > but making it explicitly is better.
> >
>
> Qualifying the pointer as const would be even more explicit.
Hello,
So what you recommend is something likes below?
- struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(cachep, node);
+ struct kmem_cache_node * const n = get_node(cachep, node);
I don't have seen this form of code protecting pointer itself in mm.
Instead, I have seen 'const struct kmem_cache_node *n' which protects
memory pointed by pointer. But this case isn't that case.
Am I missing something?
>
> > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Thank you!
--
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