[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.5.67-mm2
Hi Andrew,
hi lists readers,

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 06:08:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> +gfp_repeat.patch
> Implement __GFP_REPEAT: so we can consolidate lots of alloc-with-retry code.

What about reworking the semantics of kmalloc()?

Many users of kmalloc get the flags and size reversed (major
source of hard to find bugs), so wouldn't it be simpler to have:

__kmalloc() /* The old kmalloc()*/

kmalloc() /* kmalloc(, GFP_KERNEL) */
kmalloc_user() /* kmalloc(, GFP_USER) */
kmalloc_dma() /* kmalloc(, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA) */
kmalloc_dma_repeat() /* kmalloc(, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA | __GFP_REPEAT) */
kmalloc_repeat() /* kmalloc(, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_REPEAT) */
kmalloc_atomic() /* kmalloc(, GFP_ATOMIC) */
kmalloc_atomic_dma() /* kmalloc(, GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_DMA) */

an so on? These functions will of course just be static inline
wrappers for __kmalloc().

These functions above would just take a size and not confuse
programmers anymore (as prototypes with compatible arguments
usally do).

If it's just a matter of "nobody had the time do do it, yet",
than this is doable, if only slowly.

If this is considered nonsense, then I will shut-up.

What do you think?


Ingo Oeser
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.110 / U:1.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site