On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:06:33 +0300 Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> There are kfree_rcu() and vfree_rcu() defined below, and they will give > compilation error if someone tries to implement one more primitive with > the same name. Ah, I misread the patch. I was thinking you were simply replacing kfree_rcu() with kvfree_rcu(), but now see the macros added below it. > > We may add a comment, but I'm not sure it will be good if people will use > unpaired brackets like: > > obj = kmalloc(..) > kvfree_rcu(obj,..) > > after they read such a commentary that it works for both vmalloc and kmalloc. > After this unpaired behavior distribute over the kernel, we won't be able > to implement some debug on top of this defines (I'm not sure it will be really > need in the future, but anyway). > > Though, we may add a comment forcing use of paired bracket. Something like: > > /** > * kvfree_rcu() - kvfree an object after a grace period. > This is a primitive for objects allocated via kvmalloc*() family > primitives. > Do not use it to free kmalloc() and vmalloc() allocated objects, use > kfree_rcu() > and vfree_rcu() wrappers instead. > > How are you about this? Never mind, I missed the adding of kfree_rcu() at the bottom, and was thinking that we were just using kvfree_rcu() for everything. That's what I get for looking at patches before my first cup of coffee ;-) If you want to add a comment, feel free, but taking a second look, I don't feel it is necessary. -- Steve
