From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 18 04:29:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD52F37B401 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de [193.174.154.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDC443F3F for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:29:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de) Received: from beagle (beagle [193.175.132.100])h6IBTiv26922 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:29:44 +0200 (MEST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:29:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt To: hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030718132616.G972@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: uma_zalloc() not checking flags X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:29:48 -0000 Given that uma_zalloc() has the same flags as malloc(9) shouldn't it check these flags like malloc(9) does? I would think we could copy the #ifdef INVARIANTS section at the beginning of malloc(9) to uma_zalloc_arg(). I just found a large number of calls in the ATM code that have just M_ZERO or even 0 flags. Anything against this check? harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org