Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:02:53 +0200 | From | "Pekka Enberg" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Cleanup slab headers / API to allow easy addition of new slab allocators |
| |
Hi Christoph,
On 12/8/06, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote: > +#define SLAB_POISON 0x00000800UL /* DEBUG: Poison objects */ > +#define SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN 0x00002000UL /* Align objs on cache lines */ > +#define SLAB_CACHE_DMA 0x00004000UL /* Use GFP_DMA memory */ > +#define SLAB_MUST_HWCACHE_ALIGN 0x00008000UL /* Force alignment even if debuggin is active */
Please fix formatting while you're at it.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLAB > +#include <linux/slab_def.h> > +#else > + > +/* > + * Fallback definitions for an allocator not wanting to provide > + * its own optimized kmalloc definitions (like SLOB). > + */ > + > +#if defined(CONFIG_NUMA) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB) > +#error "SLAB fallback definitions not usable for NUMA or Slab debug"
Do we need this? Shouldn't we just make sure no one can enable CONFIG_NUMA and CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB for non-compatible allocators?
> -static inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) > +void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
static inline?
> +void *kzalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) > +{ > + return __kzalloc(size, flags); > +}
same here. - 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/
| |