Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:48:57 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: bright@mu.org, sam@errno.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step Message-ID: <200301220448.h0M4mvMh000621@apollo.backplane.com> References: <072d01c2c1a7$0fbba490$52557f42@errno.com> <20030121.165125.29485504.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030122002340.GK42333@elvis.mu.org> <20030121.192436.65876718.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Would making the malloc flags an enum and the mbuf flags another enum
be sufficient to catch API crossover problems at compile time?
For the record, I like the idea of a mandatory M_WAIT or M_NOWAIT, not
because it's good design theory, but because this particular interface
has been misused so often that we really have to make it explicit. But
we shouldn't panic in this case, instead we should printf() (else third
party modules may create unecessary crashes for the next couple of years).
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301220448.h0M4mvMh000621>