In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003171124080.3552-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk>,
James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> 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.
>
>So other than turning the remote possibility of a problem into a
>guaranteed problem, the change achieves nothing. [...]
Unless of course you are actually interested in tracking down and maybe
even fixing whatever memory leak may be causing the problem. In that
case, no joke, you really do want that problem to show itself reliably.
--Mirian
-
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