fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
commit 0a31bd5f2bbb ("KMEM_CACHE(): simplify slab cache creation")
introduces a new macro.
Use the new KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of direct kmem_cache_create
to simplify the creation of SLAB caches.
Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
---
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
index 08102883f560..8c748c6cdf6d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
@@ -28,11 +28,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *delayed_node_cache;
int __init btrfs_delayed_inode_init(void)
{
- delayed_node_cache = kmem_cache_create("btrfs_delayed_node",
- sizeof(struct btrfs_delayed_node),
- 0,
- SLAB_MEM_SPREAD,
- NULL);
+ delayed_node_cache = KMEM_CACHE(btrfs_delayed_node, SLAB_MEM_SPREAD);
if (!delayed_node_cache)
return -ENOMEM;
return 0;
--
2.39.2
On 31.01.24 07:20, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> commit 0a31bd5f2bbb ("KMEM_CACHE(): simplify slab cache creation")
> introduces a new macro.
> Use the new KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of direct kmem_cache_create
That commit is 17 years old. Why should we switch to it _now_? I
wouldn't call it a new macro.
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the patch, but I'd prefer a better
explanation why now and not 17 years ago when the macro got introduced.
> to simplify the creation of SLAB caches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
> index 08102883f560..8c748c6cdf6d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
> @@ -28,11 +28,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *delayed_node_cache;
>
> int __init btrfs_delayed_inode_init(void)
> {
> - delayed_node_cache = kmem_cache_create("btrfs_delayed_node",
> - sizeof(struct btrfs_delayed_node),
> - 0,
> - SLAB_MEM_SPREAD,
> - NULL);
> + delayed_node_cache = KMEM_CACHE(btrfs_delayed_node, SLAB_MEM_SPREAD);
> if (!delayed_node_cache)
> return -ENOMEM;
> return 0;
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:20:35AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 31.01.24 07:20, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> > commit 0a31bd5f2bbb ("KMEM_CACHE(): simplify slab cache creation")
> > introduces a new macro.
> > Use the new KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of direct kmem_cache_create
>
> That commit is 17 years old. Why should we switch to it _now_? I
> wouldn't call it a new macro.
I had the same reaction after checking the commit that added it.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the patch, but I'd prefer a better
> explanation why now and not 17 years ago when the macro got introduced.
We can add the macros where possible, at least it hides all the 0 or
NULL parameters, but yeah with a better changelog.
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.