Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-87811-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <e7c115a1-a4cd-4fbd-ac54-2bd60a42dc87@kylinos.cn>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:02:54 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use KMEM_CACHE() to create xfs_defer_pending cache
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, kunwu.chan@linux.dev
Cc: chandan.babu@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240229083342.1128686-1-kunwu.chan@linux.dev>
 <ZeEStFZwMu068YTc@dread.disaster.area>
From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
In-Reply-To: <ZeEStFZwMu068YTc@dread.disaster.area>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2024/3/1 07:26, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:33:42PM +0800, kunwu.chan@linux.dev wrote:
>> From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> Use the KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of kmem_cache_create() to simplify
>> the creation of SLAB caches when the default values are used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c | 4 +---
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c
>> index 66a17910d021..6d957fcc17f2 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_defer.c
>> @@ -1143,9 +1143,7 @@ xfs_defer_resources_rele(
>>   static inline int __init
>>   xfs_defer_init_cache(void)
>>   {
>> -	xfs_defer_pending_cache = kmem_cache_create("xfs_defer_pending",
>> -			sizeof(struct xfs_defer_pending),
>> -			0, 0, NULL);
>> +	xfs_defer_pending_cache = KMEM_CACHE(xfs_defer_pending, 0);
>>   
>>   	return xfs_defer_pending_cache != NULL ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
>>   }
> 
> Please stop wasting our time by trying to make changes that have
> already been rejected. I gave you good reasons last time for why we
> aren't going to make this change in XFS, and now you've forced
> Darrick to waste time repeating all those same reasons. You did not
> respond to my review comments last time, and now you are posting
> more patches that make the same rejected change.
> 
Sorry for the bother. It's my bad.That reply email was probably 
quarantined because of my mailbox server, and I just found it on the 
quarantine list.

I'll stop from doing this. Apologies again for my interruption.

> PLease listen to the feedback you are given. Indeed, please respond
> and acknowledge that you have read and understood the feedback you
> have been given, otherwise I'll consider anything from this email
> address as "just another annoying bot" and killfile it.
Thank you very much for your detailed reply and explanation, I just saw 
it, this patch is my problem, I forgot to check the previous mailing 
list at the time.
Sorry again for the bad mood I have caused you.
> 
> -Dave.
-- 
Thanks,
   Kunwu