Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-87816-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <b5be1cba-42b2-4474-a607-771331dbc9c8@kylinos.cn>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:06:17 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: use KMEM_CACHE() to create nfs_commit_data cache
Content-Language: en-US
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
 "anna@kernel.org" <anna@kernel.org>,
 "kunwu.chan@linux.dev" <kunwu.chan@linux.dev>
Cc: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240229094112.1154644-1-kunwu.chan@linux.dev>
 <6a1136c39cc9d8e4ae4800ad81e8e72f3b8b4516.camel@hammerspace.com>
From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>
In-Reply-To: <6a1136c39cc9d8e4ae4800ad81e8e72f3b8b4516.camel@hammerspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for the reply.

On 2024/2/29 21:40, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 17:41 +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>
>> ---
>>  =C2=A0fs/nfs/write.c | 5 +----
>>  =C2=A01 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
>> index bb79d3a886ae..6a75772d447f 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/write.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
>> @@ -2148,10 +2148,7 @@ int __init nfs_init_writepagecache(void)
>>  =C2=A0	if (nfs_wdata_mempool =3D=3D NULL)
>>  =C2=A0		goto out_destroy_write_cache;
>>  =20
>> -	nfs_cdata_cachep =3D kmem_cache_create("nfs_commit_data",
>> -					=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 sizeof(struct
>> nfs_commit_data),
>> -					=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN,
>> -					=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 NULL);
>> +	nfs_cdata_cachep =3D KMEM_CACHE(nfs_commit_data,
>> SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN);
>>  =C2=A0	if (nfs_cdata_cachep =3D=3D NULL)
>>  =C2=A0		goto out_destroy_write_mempool;
>=20
> If this were being done as part of an actual functional code change,
> then I'd be OK with it, but otherwise it is just unnecessary churn that
> gets in the way of back porting any future fixes.
It's just my personal opinion, I meant to do some cleanup. It's not=20
entirely necessary either, as everyone prefers a different style of=20
code. It doesn't matter.
>=20
>=20
--=20
Thanks,
   Kunwu