From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 20 15:20:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01622 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:20:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles232.castles.com [208.214.165.232]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01610 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:20:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA03949; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:16:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901202316.PAA03949@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Brian Feldman cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Truth to M_WAITOK? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:07:22 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:16:56 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Would someone PLEASE tell us all if malloc can really return NULL now with > flags & M_WAITOK? I've gotten contradictory answers... I went back and looked at the code again. It looks like M_WAITOK will either return non-NULL or panic; it shouldn't be capable of returning NULL. Ideally, it shouldn't panic either (why is it only that M_WAITOK can panic, and M_NOWAIT can't?). -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message