On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 09:23 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 09:09 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 May 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/4/07, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Expost buffer_size in order to allow fair estimates on the actual > > > > > space > > > > > used/needed. > > > > > > We already have ksize? > > > > ksize gives the internal size, whereas these give the external size. > > > > I need to know how much space I need to reserve, hence I need the > > external size; whereas normally you want to know how much space you have > > available, which is what ksize gives. > > > > Didn't we have this discussion last time? > > I was cced on that as far as I can tell.
Ah, that might have been, I was collecting Cc's but must've overlooked you. My bad. > The name objsize suggests the size of the object not the slab size. > If you want this then maybe call it kmem_cache_slab_size. SLUB > distinguishes between obj_size which is the size of the struct that is > used and slab_size which is the size of the object after alignment, adding > debug information etc etc. See also slabinfo.c for a way to calculate > theses sizes from user space. I'm open to renames, this is what Pekka suggested IIRC. > If we really drop SLAB then we wont need this. SLUBs data structures are > not opaque. Yeah, I know, I still have to add SLUB support, its high on my TODO list though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
