From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756025AbYFAK0S (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:26:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751457AbYFAK0L (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:26:11 -0400 Received: from mta23.gyao.ne.jp ([125.63.38.249]:48953 "EHLO mx.gate01.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751569AbYFAK0K (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:26:10 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 19:24:01 +0900 From: Paul Mundt To: Pekka J Enberg Cc: David Howells , Christoph Lameter , LKML , cooloney@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mpm@selenic.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] nommu: fix kobjsize() for SLOB and SLUB Message-ID: <20080601102401.GD25429@linux-sh.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Mundt , Pekka J Enberg , David Howells , Christoph Lameter , LKML , cooloney@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mpm@selenic.com References: <483DBA85.2060502@cs.helsinki.fi> <483DBFC3.1070108@cs.helsinki.fi> <29611.1212066517@redhat.com> <20080529211207.GB13663@linux-sh.org> <484256AA.3000709@cs.helsinki.fi> <20080601082427.GC25429@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 12:13:02PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Paul Mundt wrote: > > This still needs to be virt_to_head_page() I think. > > > > I don't have my nommu boards at home, so I'll test at the office tomorow > > morning and let you know. > > I was about to send a patch that fixes some of the kobjsize() abuses to > use ksize() but then I realized that what we probably should do is > something like this instead. > > I mean, assuming the BUG_ON bits are bogus, then we should always pass the > pointer to the allocator. I audited most of the callers and they all seem > to be really just using kmalloc() for allocation anyway. > > What do you think? > Isn't this what my original patch did? ;-)