Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:35:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: gibbs@plutotech.com (Justin T. Gibbs) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, gibbs@plutotech.com, nate@mt.sri.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: callouts in CAM (was Re: cvs commit:) Message-ID: <199709231735.KAA15342@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709231658.KAA25032@pluto.plutotech.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at Sep 23, 97 10:57:56 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >There is no reason not to watermark the free pool. It has the advantage > >that you can return memory to the system, and allocations can occur in > >page units. > > Sure, but that is not the case for the timeout and untimeout interface, > which, if you recall is what we are talking about. If a client calls > timeout and there are not entries left, and a new one cannot be allocated, > the interface does not allow this error to be propagated to the client. > If, on the other hand, the client is responsible for allocating it's > entry before it is used, the client can be smart about the failure. > > I don't want to change all of the clients of the timeout interface to make > them handle a resource failure. OK. My feeling was "in for a penny, in for a pound", meaning that if you change the interface, you might as well do everything you could want to it at once. Including propagating resource failure to the client. > I only want to modify the "heavy users" > and leave a common pool for other users of the interface. This is kind of at odds with the lack of a compatability interface... which isn't a terribly large problem, in itself. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709231735.KAA15342>