On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:26:11 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > More than half of the kmem_cache_destroy() callsites are declining that > > > > value by open-coding the NULL test. That's reality and we should > > > > recognize > > > > it. > > > > > > Well that may just indicate that we need to have a look at those > > > callsites and the reason there to use a special cache at all. > > > > This makes no sense. Go look at the code. > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/super25.c, for example. It's all > > in the basic unwind/recover/exit code. > > That is screwed up code. I'd do that without the checks simply with a > series of kmem_cache_destroys(). So go and review some of the many other callers which do this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
