From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jan 18 13:58:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18551 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:58:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18536 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:58:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA02930; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:55:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22) via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpdcZ2924; Mon Jan 18 21:55:22 1999 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:55:17 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Bruce Evans cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel malloc and M_CANWAIT In-Reply-To: <199901182141.IAA14501@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: > >There was some talk about the fact that malloc(..M_CANWAIT) > >can now return with a failure. > > You mean M_WAITOK. yes.. a braino.. (I corrected in later mail) > > >Is that true? > > Of course not. It is fundamental that malloc(..., M_WAITOK) either > succeeds or panics. Most callers depend on this and don't check for > success. The others are bogus. actually it turns out to be true.. see other email from matt. > > You may be thinking of the documented but unimplemented new flag > M_ASLEEP. It's hard to see what this does (since it is > unimplemented), but the docs say to only use it with M_NOWAIT. Unrelated > > Bruce > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message