[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180525033427.ydkkmadagerkzove@linux-n805>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 20:34:27 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
guillaume.knispel@...ersonicimagine.com,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/6] rhashtable: guarantee first allocation
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:28 PM Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>> 10 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
>
>I certainly can't complain about this small code removal, but I think if we
>did the kvmalloc_node() cleanup, we'd be able to get rid of even more.
>
>For example, bucket_table_alloc() does that
>
> if (gfp != GFP_KERNEL)
> tbl = kzalloc(size, gfp | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY);
> else
> tbl = kvzalloc(size, gfp);
>
>purely due to the kvalloc_node() oddity. Wouldn't it be nice to just write
>it as
>
> tbl = kvzalloc(size, gfp);
>
>knowing that the whole point of all the kv*alloc*() functions is to "just
>do the right thing given size, gpf mask, and ease of allocation".
Yes this makes a lot of sense. I'll see about adding it on top.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists