[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fee8a8bc-3db5-a66a-33cb-0729143ba615@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 06:53:04 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a constructor
On 04/10/2018 05:53 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
>
> __GFP_ZERO requests that the object be initialised to all-zeroes,
> while the purpose of a constructor is to initialise an object to a
> particular pattern. We cannot do both. Add a warning to catch any
> users who mistakenly pass a __GFP_ZERO flag when allocating a slab with
> a constructor.
>
> Fixes: d07dbea46405 ("Slab allocators: support __GFP_ZERO in all allocators")
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Since there are probably no bug to fix, what about adding the extra check
only for some DEBUG option ?
How many caches are still using ctor these days ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists