From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 15 07:02:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 DF0AE16A4CE; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C256243D39; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:02:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mux@freebsd.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920)
	id ABDAA5C79A; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:02:48 +0100
From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>
Message-ID: <20040315150248.GL35475@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20040315143123.GB8930@darkness.comp.waw.pl>
	<xzpish6f9hb.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xzpish6f9hb.fsf@dwp.des.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Bitstring(9) in kernel.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:02:49 -0000

Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > Ok, bitstring(9) is broken for kernel use atm, because leak of calloc()
> > function. What we should do about it?
> 
> No, it isn't broken.  You just have to use bitstr_size() to figure out
> how much space it needs and do the alloc yourself.

That is, reimplement bit_alloc().  This makes 0 sense, we should indeed
fix bit_alloc() as Pawel suggested.

Cheers,
Maxime