![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Pekka, On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 09:05:14AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Nathan Scott wrote: > > Sorry, but thats just silly. Did you even look at the code > > around what you're changing (it has to do more than just wrap > > up slab calls)? So, NACK on this patch - it leaves the code > > very confused (half zoney, half slaby), and is just unhelpful > > code churn at the end of the day. > > You're already using kmem_cache_destroy() mixed with the zone stuff so I > don't see your point. Hmm, those ones have slipped through - I'll fix those up, thanks. The vast majority of zone alloc/free uses are via the other style, many variables are named according to those interfaces, etc, etc. > I would really prefer to feed small bits at a time > so is there any way I can sweet-talk you into merging the patch? Not without a very convincing argument, and "just kill wrappers without even looking at the existing code" hasn't made me very enthusiastic so far. Regarding __GFP_NOFAIL, there are some situations where that could be used now, and others where it should not be - it'd take a very careful code audit and evidence of a level of low-memory-condition testing done, etc, before such a change would be merged. Note that the -mm tree currently has a rework of the way incore extents are managed within XFS, which significantly changes (in a good way) the nature of the allocation requests we make (and hence I'm _really_, _really_ not interested in cosmetic patches in this area just now). cheers. -- Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-21 21:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||