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;
From:   Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
To:     cl@linux.com
Cc:     penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
        aahringo@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH] mm: slab: comment __GFP_ZERO case for kmem_cache_alloc
Date:   Fri,  7 Oct 2022 22:03:12 -0400
Message-Id: <20221008020312.1932347-1-aahringo@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

This patch will add a comment for the __GFP_ZERO flag case for
kmem_cache_alloc(). As the current comment mentioned that the flags only
matters if the cache has no available objects it's different for the
__GFP_ZERO flag which will ensure that the returned object is always
zeroed in any case.

I have the feeling I run into this question already two times if the
user need to zero the object or not, but the user does not need to zero
the object afterwards. However another use of __GFP_ZERO and only zero
the object if the cache has no available objects would also make no
sense.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 mm/slab.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index 10e96137b44f..7a84c2aae85a 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -3482,7 +3482,8 @@ void *__kmem_cache_alloc_lru(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct list_lru *lru,
  * @flags: See kmalloc().
  *
  * Allocate an object from this cache.  The flags are only relevant
- * if the cache has no available objects.
+ * if the cache has no available objects. Except flag __GFP_ZERO which
+ * will zero the returned object.
  *
  * Return: pointer to the new object or %NULL in case of error
  */
-- 
2.31.1