On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 06:50:57PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:

On 05/23/2012 06:48 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 23 May 2012, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

So, why not simply patch slab to rely on the string lifetime being the
cache lifetime (or beyond) and therefore not having it take a copy?

Well thats they way it was for a long time. There must be some reason that
someone started to add this copying business....  Pekka?

The question is less why we added, but rather why we're keeping.

Of course reasoning about why it was added helps (so let's try to
determine that), but so far the only reasonably strong argument in
favor of keeping it was robustness.

I'm pretty sure it was added because there are slab names
constructed by snprintf on a stack buffer, so the name doesn't exist
beyond the slab initialisation function call...

Cheers,

Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org