Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?

Hi Hugh,

> It's interesting that compat_core_sys_select() shows this kmalloc(0)
> failure but core_sys_select() does not.  That's because core_sys_select()
> avoids kmalloc by using a buffer on the stack for small allocations (and
> 0 sure is small).  Shouldn't compat_core_sys_select() do just the same?
> Or is SLUB going to be so efficient that doing so is a waste of time?

Nice catch, the original optimisation from Andi is:

http://git.kernel.org/git-new/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=70674f95c0a2ea694d5c39f4e514f538a09be36f

And I think it makes sense for the compat code to do it too.

Anton
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
    • From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>

• References:
  • select(0, ..) is valid ?
    • From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
  • Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Clear PG_error before reading a page
• Next by Date: Re: Oops and Panics in 2.6.21.1, 2.6.20.6 and 2.6.19.2
• Previous by thread: Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
• Next by thread: Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]