mbox series

[0/2] Get rid of kmem_realloc()

Message ID 20200813142640.47923-1-cmaiolino@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Get rid of kmem_realloc() | expand

Message

Carlos Maiolino Aug. 13, 2020, 2:26 p.m. UTC
Hi folks.

This is just to give continuity to the kmem cleanup. This series get rid of
kmem_realloc() and its users.

Patches have been tested with xfstests, no issues reported so far.

Cheers

Carlos Maiolino (2):
  xfs: remove kmem_realloc() users
  xfs: remove kmem_realloc()

 fs/xfs/kmem.c                  | 22 ----------------------
 fs/xfs/kmem.h                  |  1 -
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_iext_tree.c  |  2 +-
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c |  8 ++++----
 fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c       |  2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c             |  4 ++--
 fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h             |  1 -
 7 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig Aug. 17, 2020, 6:55 a.m. UTC | #1
Both patches looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

although personally I would have simply sent them as a single patch.
Carlos Maiolino Aug. 17, 2020, 10:17 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 07:55:33AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Both patches looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 
> although personally I would have simply sent them as a single patch.

Thanks Christoph. I have no preference, I just submitted the patches according
to what I was doing, 'remove users, nothing broke? Remove functions', but I
particularly have no preference, Darrick, if the patches need to be merged just
give me a heads up.

Cheers.

>
Darrick J. Wong Aug. 17, 2020, 3:39 p.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 07:55:33AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Both patches looks good:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > 
> > although personally I would have simply sent them as a single patch.
> 
> Thanks Christoph. I have no preference, I just submitted the patches according
> to what I was doing, 'remove users, nothing broke? Remove functions', but I
> particularly have no preference, Darrick, if the patches need to be merged just
> give me a heads up.

Yes, the two patches are simple enough that they ought to be merged.

--D

> Cheers.
> 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos
>
Carlos Maiolino Aug. 18, 2020, 10:07 a.m. UTC | #4
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 08:39:22AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 07:55:33AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Both patches looks good:
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > > 
> > > although personally I would have simply sent them as a single patch.
> > 
> > Thanks Christoph. I have no preference, I just submitted the patches according
> > to what I was doing, 'remove users, nothing broke? Remove functions', but I
> > particularly have no preference, Darrick, if the patches need to be merged just
> > give me a heads up.
> 
> Yes, the two patches are simple enough that they ought to be merged.

Ok, you want me to resend or it's just a heads up for the next time?
Darrick J. Wong Aug. 18, 2020, 3:18 p.m. UTC | #5
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:07:20PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 08:39:22AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 07:55:33AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Both patches looks good:
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > > > 
> > > > although personally I would have simply sent them as a single patch.
> > > 
> > > Thanks Christoph. I have no preference, I just submitted the patches according
> > > to what I was doing, 'remove users, nothing broke? Remove functions', but I
> > > particularly have no preference, Darrick, if the patches need to be merged just
> > > give me a heads up.
> > 
> > Yes, the two patches are simple enough that they ought to be merged.
> 
> Ok, you want me to resend or it's just a heads up for the next time?

Yes please.  You've got plenty of time. :)

(FWIW I'll probably put this in for-next after -rc6, though I guess it
mostly depends on whether or not anyone tries to land any huge patchsets
this cycle that would clash with this...)

--D

> 
> 
> -- 
> Carlos
>