[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0d2d6d3e-594c-445e-96f4-c2a7991d2b14@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 13:39:32 +0200
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Longlong Xia <xialonglong@...inos.cn>, alexander.deucher@....com
Cc: amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/amdgpu: use KMEM_CACHE instead of
kmem_cache_create
On 02.09.25 09:27, Longlong Xia wrote:
> Use KMEM_CACHE() instead of kmem_cache_create() to simplify the code.
In general a good cleanup, but why are we using a separate kmem_cache here in the first place?
SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN rounds up the struct size to 128 bytes and that is something kzalloc() can return as well.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> Signed-off-by: Longlong Xia <xialonglong@...inos.cn>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> index c2a983ff23c9..51f51064685f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> @@ -37,11 +37,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *amdgpu_userq_fence_slab;
>
> int amdgpu_userq_fence_slab_init(void)
> {
> - amdgpu_userq_fence_slab = kmem_cache_create("amdgpu_userq_fence",
> - sizeof(struct amdgpu_userq_fence),
> - 0,
> - SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN,
> - NULL);
> + amdgpu_userq_fence_slab = KMEM_CACHE(amdgpu_userq_fence, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN);
> if (!amdgpu_userq_fence_slab)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists