Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:19:46 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
Cc:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] 9p: Add mempools for RPCs
Message-ID: <20220704141946.4yqo2o6ih5zrqjmy@moria.home.lan>
References: <20220704010945.C230AC341C7@smtp.kernel.org>
 <2335194.JbyEHpbE5P@silver>
 <20220704130631.eq5txpq62gwvbvts@moria.home.lan>
 <1877940.0u7pHPiiHj@silver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1877940.0u7pHPiiHj@silver>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> So simple that it already had one obvious bug (at least). But as it seems that 
> Dominique already supports your patch, I refrain from enumerating more 
> reasons.

So snippy.

> 
> > > However that's exactly what I was going to address with my already posted
> > > patches (relevant patches regarding this issue here being 9..12):
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1640870037.git.linux_oss@crudebyte.com/
> > > And in the cover letter (section "STILL TODO" ... "3.") I was suggesting
> > > to
> > > subsequently subdivide kmem_cache_alloc() into e.g. 4 allocation size
> > > categories? Because that's what my already posted patches do anyway.
> > 
> > Yeah that sounds like you're just reimplementing kmalloc.
> 
> Quite exaggerated statement.

I'm just pointing out that kmalloc() is just a frontend around
kmem_cache_alloc() that picks the cache based on the size parameter... so...
still sounds like you are?

Not that there's never a legitimate reason to do so, but it does raise an
eyebrow.