[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectkmem_cache_attr (was Re: [PATCH 04/36] usercopy: Prepare for usercopy whitelisting)
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> > Hmmm... At some point we should switch kmem_cache_create to pass a struct
> > containing all the parameters. Otherwise the API will blow up with
> > additional functions.
> Obviously I agree with you. I'm inclined to not let that delay Kees'
> patches; we can fix the few places that use this API later. At this
> point, my proposal for the ultimate form would be:

Right. Thats why I said "at some point"....

> struct kmem_cache_attr {
> const char name[32];

Want to avoid the string reference mess that occurred in the past?
Is that really necessary? But it would limit the size of the name.

> void (*ctor)(void *);
> unsigned int useroffset;
> unsigned int user_size;
> };
> kmem_create_cache_attr(const struct kmem_cache_attr *attr, unsigned int size,
> unsigned int align, slab_flags_t flags)
> (my rationale is that everything in attr should be const, but size, align
> and flags all get modified by the slab code).

Thought about putting all the parameters into the kmem_cache_attr struct.


struct kmem_cache_attr {
char *name;
size_t size;
size_t align;
slab_flags_t flags;
unsigned int useroffset;
unsinged int usersize;
void (*ctor)(void *);
kmem_isolate_func *isolate;
kmem_migrate_func *migrate;

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-16 16:22    [W:0.113 / U:2.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site