[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D7D0EE01-6BD2-498F-88D5-CC3829A39561@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 21:38:53 +0000
From: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
To: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
CC: "<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"<HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>" <HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>,
"<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: obd_support: Add obd_cpt_alloc function
On May 2, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Summarize OBD_CPT_ALLOC_GFP, OBD_CPT_ALLOC, and OBD_CPT_ALLOC_PTR as a
> function, obd_cpt_alloc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
>
> ---
>
> Some questions: Is the name OK? Is the NULL test needed? If not, should
> the call to kzalloc_node with the call to cfs_cpt_spread_node just be
> inlined into the call sites?
I think we don't need this function at all, we can use kzalloc/kzalloc_node directly with cfs_cpt_spread_node call in.
What we do need is obd_cpt_alloc_large similar to how we need obd_alloc_large (I know I still owe you a proper patch with that).
The only differences between the two would then be passing down of the cpt (and it's use) or not.
Bye,
Oleg--
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