Hello!
On May 2, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:13:11PM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
The patch was submitted.
But it depends on a symbol that's not exported.
I was not able to change that.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg83997.html
>
On Sat, 2 May 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:13:11PM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> > >> The patch was submitted.
> > >> But it depends on a symbol that's not exported.
> > >> I was not able to change that.
> > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg83997.html
> > >
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:13:11PM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> >> The patch was submitted.
> >> But it depends on a symbol that's not exported.
> >> I was not able to change that.
> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg83997.html
> >
> > But you were given a hint on how to change that :)
>
> Yes, I imagine Julia will include that as the new lustre_kvzalloc() define
> to be used in all OBD_ALLOC_LARGE instances.
> I can provide the desired code if necessary (it's actually a bit less than
> trivial
> because in some cases we also have that numa-aware node thing).
Oleg,
If you could
>> Yes the LARGE functions do the switching. I was expecting also patches to
>> remove the
>> OBD_ALLOC_LARGE functions as well which is not the case here. I do have one
>> question still. The
>> macro __OBD_MALLOC_VERBOSE allowed the ability to simulate memory allocation
>> failures at
>> a c
>> Yes the LARGE functions do the switching. I was expecting also patches to
>> remove the
>> OBD_ALLOC_LARGE functions as well which is not the case here. I do have one
>> question still. The
>> macro __OBD_MALLOC_VERBOSE allowed the ability to simulate memory allocation
>> failures at
>> a c
On May 1, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:52:37PM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>>
>> On May 1, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:36:05PM +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> We are hopefully going to get rid of
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:52:37PM +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:36:05PM +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> >>> We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
> >>>
> >>> It's simple e
On May 1, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:36:05PM +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
>>> We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
>>>
>>> It's simple enough to write a function:
>>>
>>> void *obd_zalloc(size_t size)
>>> {
>>>
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:36:05PM +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> >We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
> >
> >It's simple enough to write a function:
> >
> >void *obd_zalloc(size_t size)
> >{
> > if (size > 4 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
> > return vzall
On May 1, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> Yes the LARGE functions do the switching. I was expecting also patches to
> remove the
> OBD_ALLOC_LARGE functions as well which is not the case here. I do have one
> question still. The
> macro __OBD_MALLOC_VERBOSE allowed the ability to
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:18:56PM +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> >> >From: Julia Lawall
> >> >
> >> >Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT
> >> >by
> >> >kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
> >>
> >> Nak: James Simmons
> >>
> >> A simp
>We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
>
>It's simple enough to write a function:
>
>void *obd_zalloc(size_t size)
>{
> if (size > 4 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
> return vzalloc(size);
> else
> return kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
>}
>
>Ex
>> >From: Julia Lawall
>> >
>> >Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT by
>> >kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
>>
>> Nak: James Simmons
>>
>> A simple replace will not work. The OBD_ALLOC and OBD_FREE functions
>> allocate memory
>> anyw
On May 1, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
>
> It's simple enough to write a function:
>
> void *obd_zalloc(size_t size)
> {
> if (size > 4 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
> return vzalloc(size);
> else
We are hopefully going to get rid of OBD_ALLOC_LARGE() as well, though.
It's simple enough to write a function:
void *obd_zalloc(size_t size)
{
if (size > 4 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE)
return vzalloc(size);
else
return kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
}
Except, huh
Hello!
On May 1, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> From: Julia Lawall
>>>
>>> Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT by
>>> kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
>>
>> Nak: James Simmons
>>
>> A simple replace will not work. The OBD_
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 05:38:49PM +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> >From: Julia Lawall
> >
> >Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT by
> >kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
>
> Nak: James Simmons
>
> A simple replace will not work. The O
>From: Julia Lawall
>
>Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT by
>kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
Nak: James Simmons
A simple replace will not work. The OBD_ALLOC and OBD_FREE functions allocate
memory
anywhere from one page to 4MB in s
On Fri, 1 May 2015, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> >From: Julia Lawall
> >
> >Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT by
> >kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
>
> Nak: James Simmons
>
> A simple replace will not work. The OBD_ALLOC and OBD_FREE
From: Julia Lawall
Replace OBD_ALLOC, OBD_ALLOC_WAIT, OBD_ALLOC_PTR, and OBD_ALLOC_PTR_WAIT by
kalloc/kcalloc, and OBD_FREE and OBD_FREE_PTR by kfree.
A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes these changes is as
follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
//
@@ expression ptr,size; @@
-
21 matches
Mail list logo
