Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:01:29 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_kern.c Message-ID: <20040216135620.K4491@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040216140303.63057O-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040216140303.63057O-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Robert Watson wrote: > getting somewhere. I'm not sure what the right answer in procfs is, but I > think this isn't it. Maybe we need a new M_flag that says "And fail if > it's rediculous", but I'm very concerned that we just substituted memory > allocation semantics throughout the kernel and the impact it will have... > It could be harmless, but it's also not a change to make without a lot of > hard cogitation. > > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research If maintaining the old semantics is important, then adding a third flag sounds like the way to go. Unfortunately, I can't think of something appropriate that would fit into the form M_XXXXXX. I'm only jumping in because I had considered making a change similar to DES's back when I was investigating why the old pipe code could panic the machine; the current situation of panic vs NOWAIT is very frustrating. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040216135620.K4491>