From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix slab_pad_check() Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:09:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20090909150945.GB6749@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090903231757.GP6761@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090904204335.GG6751@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090908222036.GM6753@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090908225937.GO6753@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090909144238.GA6749@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , Pekka Enberg , Zdenek Kabelac , Patrick McHardy , Robin Holt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Linux Netdev List , Netfilter Developers , dhowells@redhat.com, lethal@linux-sh.org, kernel@wantstofly.org, mpm@selenic.com To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:53:22AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > If the embedded guys are OK with an additional pointer in the slab data > > structure, I have no objection to this approach. I am assuming that we > > would use the usual ops-style structure full of pointers to functions > > in order to avoid a pair of extra pointers. > > This would also allow us to get rid of the ctor pointer in > kmem_cache_create(). We can put it into the same structure. Sounds good -- that would result in no increase in size. Could even add a dtor if people want it. ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist...) Thanx, Paul