Re: [RFC] Cleanup slab headers / API to allow easy addition of new slab allocators

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Christoph,

On 12/8/06, Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/