Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46978-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:39:29 +0100
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>
Cc: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>, "clm@fb.com" <clm@fb.com>,
	"josef@toxicpanda.com" <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	"dsterba@suse.com" <dsterba@suse.com>,
	"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Simplify the allocation of slab caches in
 btrfs_delayed_inode_init
Message-ID: <20240131183929.GP31555@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
References: <20240131061924.130083-1-chentao@kylinos.cn>
 <a31f7d10-3c07-44e3-ac28-f5d05507af50@wdc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a31f7d10-3c07-44e3-ac28-f5d05507af50@wdc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)

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.