Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> It might be worth reverting some of the code back to the zlib original.
>> The use of stack allocations here is actually a Linux divergence from
>> zlib (done by Linus), in order to reduce the number of dynamic allocations.
>>
>> In general, the use of dynamic allocations is highly dangerous, because
>> any time you have dynamic allocations you have the choice of either
>> sleeping or failing, unless you have a pre-reserved memory pool.
>>
>
> Well, every time this code is instantiated, it gets its own malloc/free
> definitions, so they can decide how to handle the dynamic allocations.
> Seems better than assuming that every caller will have enough stack
> space. If you want to approximate that, it would be easy enough to have
> a stack-like malloc/free, in which freeing the last allocation will
> always release space.
Indeed, however, the point still holds:
- Going to something more like the upstream zlib code makes it
worthwhile to see whatever else should be merged;
- Users must be audited for correctness.
In particular, it would be good to have a "preallocate me enough memory
so it can be guaranteed that this will succeed" operation.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
