Re: [PATCH 1/5] slab: make __slab_free() more clear

[Harry Yoo]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 10:05:29AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> The function is tricky and many of its tests are hard to understand. Try
> to improve that by using more descriptively named variables and added
> comments.
> 
> - rename 'prior' to 'old_head' to match the head and tail parameters
> - introduce a 'bool was_full' to make it more obvious what we are
>   testing instead of the !prior and prior tests

Yeah I recall these were cryptic when I was analyzing slab few years
ago :)

> - add or improve comments in various places to explain what we're doing
> 
> Also replace kmem_cache_has_cpu_partial() tests with
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL) which are compile-time constants.
>
> We can do that because the kmem_cache_debug(s) case is handled upfront
> via free_to_partial_list().

This makes sense. By the way, should we also check IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_TINY)
in kmem_cache_has_cpu_partial()?

> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---

The code is much cleaner!

Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon