[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a31f7d10-3c07-44e3-ac28-f5d05507af50@wdc.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:20:35 +0000
From: Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>
To: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>, "clm@...com" <clm@...com>,
"josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>, "dsterba@...e.com"
<dsterba@...e.com>
CC: "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Simplify the allocation of slab caches in
btrfs_delayed_inode_init
On 31.01.24 07:20, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> commit 0a31bd5f2bbb ("KMEM_CACHE(): simplify slab cache creation")
> introduces a new macro.
> Use the new KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of direct kmem_cache_create
That commit is 17 years old. Why should we switch to it _now_? I
wouldn't call it a new macro.
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the patch, but I'd prefer a better
explanation why now and not 17 years ago when the macro got introduced.
> to simplify the creation of SLAB caches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
> index 08102883f560..8c748c6cdf6d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
> @@ -28,11 +28,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *delayed_node_cache;
>
> int __init btrfs_delayed_inode_init(void)
> {
> - delayed_node_cache = kmem_cache_create("btrfs_delayed_node",
> - sizeof(struct btrfs_delayed_node),
> - 0,
> - SLAB_MEM_SPREAD,
> - NULL);
> + delayed_node_cache = KMEM_CACHE(btrfs_delayed_node, SLAB_MEM_SPREAD);
> if (!delayed_node_cache)
> return -ENOMEM;
> return 0;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists