On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:18:46 -0800
Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
> Do we need to be able to free any of those objects in order to rename
> kfree_rcu() to just free_rcu()?
I'm just nervous about tightly coupling free_rcu() with all the *free()
from the memory management system. I've been burnt in the past by doing
such things.
What's the down side of having a way of matching *free_rcu() with all
the *free()s? I think it's easier to understand, and rcu doesn't need
to worry about changes of *free() code.
To me:
kfree_rcu(x);
is just a quick way of doing 'kfree(x)' after a synchronize_rcu() call.
But a "free_rcu(x)", is something I have to think about, because I
don't know from the name exactly what it is doing.
I know this may sound a bit bike shedding, but the less I need to think
about how other sub systems work, the easier it is to concentrate on my
own sub system.
-- Steve
