From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7036B00CE for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:18:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add vzalloc shortcut Message-Id: <20101018191840.89b39aa3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20101016043331.GA3177@darkstar> <20101018164647.bc928c78.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Young Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:55:17 +0800 Dave Young wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Dave Young wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Andrew Morton > >> > >> Also, a slightly better implementation would be > >> > >> static inline void * vmalloc_node_flags(unsigned long size, gfp_t flags) > >> { > >> return vmalloc_node(size, 1, flags, PAGE_KERNEL, -1, > >> builtin_return_address(0)); > >> } > > Is this better? might vmalloc_node_flags would be used by other than vmalloc? > > static inline void * vmalloc_node_flags(unsigned long size, int node, > gfp_t flags) I have no strong opinions, really. If we add more and more arguments to vmalloc_node_flags() it ends up looking like vmalloc_node(), so we may as well just call vmalloc_node(). Do whatever feels good ;) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org