From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jul  9  6: 3:54 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2B837B400
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  9 Jul 2002 06:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B3243E09
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  9 Jul 2002 06:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from abjenkins@attbi.com)
Received: from foo ([24.60.235.125]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020709130351.JPFB8262.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@foo>;
          Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:03:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Anthony Jenkins <abjenkins@attbi.com>
To: Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org>
Subject: Re: KSE M-III status & junior hacker project.
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:03:04 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1
Cc: joe@tao.org.uk, current@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <200207082347.g68Nlhwr002091@gw.catspoiler.org>
In-Reply-To: <200207082347.g68Nlhwr002091@gw.catspoiler.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200207090903.04266.abjenkins@attbi.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Monday 2002-July-08 19:47, Don Lewis wrote:
> On  8 Jul, Anthony Jenkins wrote:
> > I've been looking at the pcm code and I can see where it locks, then
> > allocates memory with the M_WAITOK flag thing.  I'm wondering if ther=
e's
> > a standard procedure for fixing these... would I just nail down the
> > malloc to a non-sleepable one?
>
> Only if the the code can cope with malloc() failing and returning NULL
> if the memory isn't immediately available.  In most cases a better
> solution is to allocate the memory before grabbing the lock.

Thanks... I'll take a look at this tonight after work.

--
Anthony Jenkins


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message