Re: [patch 01/10] SLUB: add support for kmem_cache_ops

2007-05-20 Thread Pekka Enberg
Christoph Lameter wrote: Yeah earlier versions did this but then I have to do a patch that changes all destructors and all kmem_cache_create calls in the kernel. Yes, please ;-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [patch 01/10] SLUB: add support for kmem_cache_ops

2007-05-19 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 5/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > kmem_cache_ops is created as empty. Later patches populate kmem_cache_ops. > > Hmm, would make more sense to me to move "ctor" in kmem_cache_ops in > this patch and not make kmem_cache_create()

Re: [patch 01/10] SLUB: add support for kmem_cache_ops

2007-05-19 Thread Pekka Enberg
On 5/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: kmem_cache_ops is created as empty. Later patches populate kmem_cache_ops. Hmm, would make more sense to me to move "ctor" in kmem_cache_ops in this patch and not make kmem_cache_create() take both as parameters... - To unsubscribe from t

[patch 01/10] SLUB: add support for kmem_cache_ops

2007-05-18 Thread clameter
We use the parameter formerly used by the destructor to pass an optional pointer to a kmem_cache_ops structure to kmem_cache_create. kmem_cache_ops is created as empty. Later patches populate kmem_cache_ops. Create a KMEM_CACHE_OPS macro that allows the specification of a the kmem_cache_ops. Cod