[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220704141946.4yqo2o6ih5zrqjmy@moria.home.lan>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:19:46 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] 9p: Add mempools for RPCs
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> So simple that it already had one obvious bug (at least). But as it seems that
> Dominique already supports your patch, I refrain from enumerating more
> reasons.
So snippy.
>
> > > However that's exactly what I was going to address with my already posted
> > > patches (relevant patches regarding this issue here being 9..12):
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1640870037.git.linux_oss@crudebyte.com/
> > > And in the cover letter (section "STILL TODO" ... "3.") I was suggesting
> > > to
> > > subsequently subdivide kmem_cache_alloc() into e.g. 4 allocation size
> > > categories? Because that's what my already posted patches do anyway.
> >
> > Yeah that sounds like you're just reimplementing kmalloc.
>
> Quite exaggerated statement.
I'm just pointing out that kmalloc() is just a frontend around
kmem_cache_alloc() that picks the cache based on the size parameter... so...
still sounds like you are?
Not that there's never a legitimate reason to do so, but it does raise an
eyebrow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists