From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3296E218ADD; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743598545; cv=none; b=hvMKQmYQ1Eqd+T/JQf2YOk0qAeNMnGRaKwTFFbGcA3ljdOmhfhvq7AlZBAxmvUCSyPakvBs07vG1TVdhG6+DCcNAgalfjplIBmAdLGzgYpaJFTsOLLMakgwuu1BWuCh4PFAxHrfCx8UehoVBVKOsVGY+8Y0ci4CMnJcLMAD+S6k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743598545; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TXtLquoRRAqtrc02VbnTtQ9X9BjOAMh9LtUpk4wHJVY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HNoFK9zuKGOX64cpRiTU8MaSLZIwLur4E34V/MNt5rMaI+3Oj4BW8SvtWEpZR2xIS0frE6IqIZ3QYfrj7EsBnBj5/+ygiq7vhEYH1Hw/TuDb5kF+dRAnKuP+Sb+nDpf21xoXgAoaEws0WUKYXMKfO7i9ReemIlTVkridj6ghvN8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=LSs8p4TL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="LSs8p4TL" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1743598545; x=1775134545; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=TXtLquoRRAqtrc02VbnTtQ9X9BjOAMh9LtUpk4wHJVY=; b=LSs8p4TLXKntODjuiLjsV3xe8XE1hMKVbTOLuYg7aLvJJZWapRbXcjU/ XKNgUjBDeOEykp+XFBr2koeVRtETY7fCI6KooWWQLdYYAHsxwVwD/MFfD nJ13QaRIod5DKhI7dPECALqveoW4yDloFIW+D0XOqQPnaZFXiWSY299u7 6iPitRKgev4ou10EZsuRyqAoTUAZ7s/MZP8tmNIi3pBSpZMqNXKBibFk8 yNPPIllo/iCiVvCLcHJnUQcrUT6MECkWu+0vOWb7bSXmQdV+CsOiBhrSW F7huz5TWeXUbHaBCX7JgHHnw/W6WdbEHkuzTaKx8lTtPiwtlT2X7ZdgxU Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 6zoZj8oeSYW8RhVMqWAKFQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: SxfbFDUPRFauchmAwORIHQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11392"; a="55955133" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,182,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="55955133" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2025 05:55:44 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: zOjX9rwPToG2JDLyvrPKUA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: LT6rlRGDQG61zNwAkljtKg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,182,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="126650218" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.58]) by orviesa006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2025 05:55:42 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tzxd4-00000008ToG-2Zb4; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:55:38 +0300 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:55:38 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Przemek Kitszel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, vbabka@suse.cz, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] slab: introduce auto_kfree macro Message-ID: References: <20250401134408.37312-1-przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com> <20250402122104.GK25239@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250402122104.GK25239@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 02:21:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:32:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > What would be better in my opinion is to have it something like DEFINE_*() > > type, which will look more naturally in the current kernel codebase > > (as we have tons of DEFINE_FOO(). > > > > DEFINE_AUTO_KFREE_VAR(name, struct foo); > > Still weird. Much better to have the compiler complain about the > obvious use of uninitialized. That would be ideal! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko