From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 17 17: 4:52 2002 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 BF4B037B401; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:04:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9249143E3B; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:04:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 61253AE2E4; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:04:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:04:41 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: jeff@freebsd.org Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: uma issues with ctor/dtor/uminit/fini Message-ID: <20021118010441.GM6882@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Shouldn't the allocator functions take an additional argument WAIT/NOWAIT? Shouldn't the allocator functions also return success/failure that should be propogated back up to the caller in case they fail? Shall I take a shot at this or can you Jeff? I'm not sure I'm comfortable adding an error case to uma_zalloc, but who knows... -- -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-hackers" in the body of the message