On So 28-01-06 23:59:07, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > >If sending routines can work with constant ammount of memory, why use
> > >kmalloc at all? Anyway I thought we were talking receiving side
> > >earlier in the thread.
> > >
> > >Ouch and wait a moment. You claim that GFP_KERNEL allocations can't
> > >block/sleep? Of course they can, that's why they are GFP_KERNEL and
> > >not GFP_ATOMIC.
> > >
> > I didn't meant GFP_KERNEL allocations cannot block/sleep? When in
> > emergency, we
> > want even the GFP_KERNEL allocations that are made by critical sockets
> > not to block/sleep.
> > So my original critical sockets patches changes the gfp flag passed to
> > these allocation requests
> > to GFP_KERNEL|GFP_CRITICAL.
(I'd say Al Viro mode, but Al could take that personally)
IOW: You keep pushing complex and known-broken solution for problem
that does not exist.
(Now you should be angry enough, and please explain why I'm wrong in
easy to understand terms, so that even I will understand that we need
critical sockets for kernels in emergency).
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
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]
