Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>
>> Remove the ctor for the pgd cache. There's no point in having the
>> cache machinery do this via an indirect call when all pgd are freed in
>> the one place anyway.
>>
>
> Great. We finally get rid of this ev
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Remove the ctor for the pgd cache. There's no point in having the
> cache machinery do this via an indirect call when all pgd are freed in
> the one place anyway.
Great. We finally get rid of this evil .
On second throughts:
Are you sure t
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> On 2/16/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Remove the ctor for the pgd cache. There's no point in having the
>>> cache machinery do this via an indirect call when all pgd are freed in
>>> the one place anyway.
>>
>>
>> The reason w
Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 2/16/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remove the ctor for the pgd cache. There's no point in having the
cache machinery do this via an indirect call when all pgd are freed in
the one place anyway.
The reason we have slab constructors and destructors
On 2/16/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remove the ctor for the pgd cache. There's no point in having the
cache machinery do this via an indirect call when all pgd are freed in
the one place anyway.
The reason we have slab constructors and destructors is to _avoid_
reinitial
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Remove the ctor for the pgd cache. There's no point in having the
cache machinery do this via an indirect call when all pgd are freed in
the one place anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thi
6 matches
Mail list logo
