From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:40 -0800 Message-ID: <20111221170940.GC9213@google.com> References: <20111220162315.GC10752@google.com> <20111220202854.GH10752@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:63514 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753051Ab1LURJq (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:09:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner Hello, On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:08:48AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Sure but well-defined semantics alone are not sufficient for a > reasonable API. It's not at all obvious which one of the four variants > to pick when writing code. I don't see any evidence that people > actually understand the API. On the contrary, I see bugs caused by API > confusion in mm/slub.c itself! Sure, I agree. If nobody beats me to it, I'll try to clean it up for the merge window after the coming one (ie. 3.4). But please feel free to submit patches to gut out cruft and clean up. I'll be happy to apply them. Thanks. -- tejun