On Wednesday 10 August 2005 01:36, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > - We already have a refcount
> > - We have a field where putting a flag isn't that much of a problem
> > - It can be difficult to get page refcounting right when dealing with
> > such things, really.
>
> Probably easier to get the page refcounting right with these than with
> most. Getting refcounting wrong is always bad.
He seems to be arguing for a new debug option.
> > In that case, we basically have an _easy_ way to trigger a useful BUG()
> > in the page free path when it's a page that should never be returned to
> > the pool.
>
> As bad_page already does on various other flags (though it clears those,
> whereas this one you'd prefer not to clear). Hmm, okay, though I'm not
> sure it's worth its own page flag if they're in short supply.
Nineteen out of 32 officially spoken for so far, with some out of tree patches
regarding the remainder with desirous eyes no doubt. I think that qualifies
as short supply. But it is not just that, it is the extra cost of
understanding and auditing the features implied by the flags, particularly
bogus features.
Regards,
Daniel
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |