On 18 Mar 2000 01:44:46 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
It isn't a problem that CAN show reliably, if it is OOM related.
(Arguably, it isn't even a problem.) Your code is using memory in a
particular way; if there isn't any memory, it fails.
Causing this particular (valid, AFAICS) use of memory to be a problem
in itself would prevent the symptom above showing - but do you really
want or need that?
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 - 21:00:27 EST