From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:54723 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725198AbeHJERX (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:17:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net/9p: add a per-client fcall kmem_cache To: Dominique Martinet References: <1533177452-2165-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org> <1533825236-22896-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org> <1533825236-22896-2-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org> <5B6CE900.1010103@huawei.com> <20180810014147.GB14699@nautica> CC: , Dominique Martinet , , , Matthew Wilcox , "Greg Kurz" From: piaojun Message-ID: <5B6CEF2C.2070606@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:49:32 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180810014147.GB14699@nautica> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thanks for clearing my doubt, and you can add: Acked-by: Jun Piao On 2018/8/10 9:41, Dominique Martinet wrote: > piaojun wrote on Fri, Aug 10, 2018: >> Could you help paste the test result of before-after-applied this patch in >> comment? And please see my comments below. > > Thanks the the review, do you mean the commit message? > > I'll add the summary I wrote in reply to your question a few mails > before. > Yes, I mean the commit message. > >>> diff --git a/include/net/9p/9p.h b/include/net/9p/9p.h >>> index e23896116d9a..645266b74652 100644 >>> --- a/include/net/9p/9p.h >>> +++ b/include/net/9p/9p.h >>> @@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ enum p9_qid_t { >>> #define P9_NOFID (u32)(~0) >>> #define P9_MAXWELEM 16 >>> >>> +/* Minimal header size: len + id + tag */ >> >> Here should be 'size + id + tag'. > > hm I didn't want to repeat size, but I guess people do refer to that > field as size. > I'll actually rewrite it as: > Minimal header size: size[4] type[1] tag[2] > It looks better. >>> + kmem_cache_destroy(clnt->fcall_cache); >> >> I'm afraid that we should check NULL for clnt->fcall_cache. > > kmem_cache_destroy() in mm/slab_common.c does the null check for us: > ------ > void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s) > { > int err; > > if (unlikely(!s)) > return; > ------ > OK, it makes sense.