On 12.08.2025 02:19, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 7/23/25 09:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Use the more "modern" form, thus doing away with effectively open-coding >> xmalloc_array() at the same time. While there is a difference in >> generated code, as xmalloc_bytes() forces SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment, if >> code really cared about such higher than default alignment, it should >> request so explicitly. > > While I don't object to the change itself, I think this description is a > bit over simplification of the change. If the allocation is under > PAGE_SIZE, then they are equivalent, but if it is over the page size > there are a few more differences than just cache alignment. It > completely changes the underlying allocator. I personally also find it a > bit of a stretch to call xmalloc_bytes(size) an open coded version of > xmalloc_array(char, size).
My take is that xmalloc_bytes() should never have existed. Hence why I didn't add xzmalloc_bytes() when introducing that family of interfaces. > With a stronger description of the change, So what exactly do you mean by "stronger"? I can add that in the unlikely event that one of the allocations is (near) PAGE_SIZE or larger, we now wouldn't require contiguous memory anymore. Yet based on your comment at the top I'm not quite sure if that's what you're after and/or enough to satisfy your request. > Acked-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsm...@apertussolutions.com> Thanks, but will need clarification first as per above. Jan
