From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the ftrace tree Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:41:37 +0200 Message-ID: <1235122897.29813.28.camel@penberg-laptop> References: <20090220165728.7f2cec61.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090220195911.3bff30fb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090220093734.GI24555@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:48705 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753743AbZBTJlk (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:41:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090220093734.GI24555@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Christoph Lameter , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Hi Ingo, On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 10:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:57:28 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > @@@ -2723,18 -2689,9 +2727,19 @@@ static void *kmalloc_large_node(size_t > > > void *__kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node) > > > { > > > struct kmem_cache *s; > > > + void *ret; > > > > > > - if (unlikely(size > SLUB_MAX_SIZE)) > > > - return kmalloc_large_node(size, flags, node); > > > ++ if (unlikely(size > SLUB_MAX_SIZE)) { > > > + if (unlikely(size > PAGE_SIZE)) { > > > > Except I screwed that up. I meant to delete the last line > > above. I will add a patch to the end of linux-next for today. > > Hm, i'd love to eliminate the conflict, but it would either mean > us to pull the slab tree into the tracing tree, or the other way > around - and both have quite many items queued up to make this > impractical. Is it a big problem, though? We could do the s/PAGE_SIZE/SLUB_MAX_SIZE/g rename as a separate preparational patch (without any of the functional changes) and see if Linus merges it to mainline... Pekka