Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:13 +0200
>> Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> +static int __init nsproxy_cache_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + nsproxy_cachep = kmem_cache_create("nsproxy", sizeof(struct nsproxy),
>>> + 0, SLAB_PANIC, NULL, NULL);
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> Christoph added this cheesy KMEM_CACHE macro. But I don't immediately recall
>> the rationale so I'm a bit reluctant to ask people to use-the-cheesy-macro.
>>
>> Perhaps he can remind us why it is there?
>
> Because it simplifies the handling of slabs.
>
> The above will could become:
>
> nsproxy_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(nsproxy, SLAB_PANIC);
>
> meaning create a cache for the nsproxy struct, the nsproxy name and the
> nsproxy size. See include/linux/slab.h.
yes, I should probably use that for the nsproxy struct.
my 2cts :
the macro sets the align parameter to "__alignof__(struct)" by default.
is that something we want to do all the time ? if so, why not change
kmem_cache_create() directly ?
Most of the complexity is in flags. I did a grep and picked what i thought
was the most aggressive. The macro would probably be more useful if we could
identify by it's name in which context it can be used.
C.
-
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/
