From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 22 13:52:53 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC98337B401; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8095243F13; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:52:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 60759AE211; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:52:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:52:51 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bosko Milekic Cc: Jeffrey Hsu , arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step Message-ID: <20030122215251.GU42333@elvis.mu.org> References: <0H94005IYWJT1Z@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> <20030122162531.B77209@unixdaemons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030122162531.B77209@unixdaemons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Bosko Milekic [030122 13:23] wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:20:59PM -0800, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: > > I'm going to weigh in here on the side of the all the seasoned BSD veterans > > that we should preserve the M_WAIT flag. I like saying M_WAIT when I mean > > M_WAIT. I dislike saying 0 when I mean M_WAIT. > > > > The fundamental problem here is that M_WAIT looks like a bit flag. That > > problem should be directly solved by defining it to be a bit flag. There > > are no ABI issues with this in FreeBSD 5.x. > > > > Warner's proposal to automatically detect programming error is also > > a good idea. And, that relies on making M_WAIT a bit flag too. > > > > Let's solve the problem where it really lies by simply making M_WAIT > > a bit flag. > > > > Jeffrey > > Not one of you has said why you think that the wait behavior should > not be the default behavior and why the dontwait behavior shouldn't be > treated like an exception. Well it's easier to argue when you just voice an opinion/preference without any technical reason. Btw, under Darwin, even free(9) can block you. :) So saying developing an implementation that depends on non-blocking malloc isn't all that good. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message