[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221121121938.1f202880ffe6bb18160ef785@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:19:38 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/slab: add is_kmalloc_cache() helper macro
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:50:23 +0800 Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SLOB
> +#define is_kmalloc_cache(s) ((s)->flags & SLAB_KMALLOC)
> +#else
> +#define is_kmalloc_cache(s) (false)
> +#endif
Could be implemented as a static inline C function, yes?
If so, that's always best. For (silly) example, consider the behaviour
of
x = is_kmalloc_cache(s++);
with and without CONFIG_SLOB.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists