On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Peter Svensson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>
> > The only circumstance under which this change would have any effect is
> > where the kernel's "promise" is put to the test. With the current
> > behaviour, the promise COULD be broken. With your suggestion implemented,
> > it GUARANTEES that the problem occurs.
>
> No, it allows the promise to be a firm one.
The only circumstances under which the promise is ever tested are
circumstances in which your suggestion prevents correct operation anyway.
> > So other than turning the remote possibility of a problem into a
> > guaranteed problem, the change achieves nothing. I don't think it'll make
> > it into the tree, then :-)
>
> No, it makes sure that programs needing to know that the memory they have
> really is available will work. Most embedded systems are written with this
> in mind. I would imagine many special-purpose computers could use this as
> well (routers etc).
Not with your approach. There is a risk the process may die, if the
kernel's promise of usable memory is broken. You turn this into a firm
promise - of unusable memory!
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST