Current code calls mm_slot_entry() even when we don't have a valid slot,
which is not future proof. Currently, this is not a problem because
"slot" is the first member in struct khugepaged_mm_slot.

While struct khugepaged_mm_slot is just a wrapper of struct mm_slot, there
is no need to define it.

Remove the definition of struct khugepaged_mm_slot, so there is not chance
to miss use mm_slot_entry().

Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: xu xin <xu.xin16@zte.com.cn>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Cc: Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
Reviewed-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@amd.com>
---
 mm/khugepaged.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index 7ab2d1a42df3..abe54f0043c7 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -376,10 +376,7 @@ int hugepage_madvise(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 
 int __init khugepaged_init(void)
 {
-	mm_slot_cache = kmem_cache_create("khugepaged_mm_slot",
-					  sizeof(struct mm_slot),
-					  __alignof__(struct mm_slot),
-					  0, NULL);
+	mm_slot_cache = KMEM_CACHE(mm_slot, 0);
 	if (!mm_slot_cache)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-- 
2.34.1