On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> They could be but I would rather not. What if one day I decide to
> change how ntfs_malloc_nofs() works? Then it would be needed to
> carefully go through the whole driver looking for places where kmalloc
> is used and change those, too.
>
> From a software design point of view you should never mix interfaces
> when accessing an object if you want clean and maintainable code. And
> using kmalloc() sometimes and ntfs_malloc_nofs() at other times for the
> same object would violate that.
>
> The wrapper is a static inline so I would assume gcc can optimize away
> everything when a constant size is passed in like in the example you
> point out above.
Hey, I am not worried about performance. It's just that filesystems (or
any other subsystem for that matter) should not invent their own memory
allocators. Perhaps should provide a generic __vmalloc_fast() if this is
really required?
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
