Re: 2.4.2-pre3 compile error in 6pack.c

From: Manfred Spraul (
Date: Sun Feb 11 2001 - 15:39:10 EST

Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Would it be costly/reasonable to have kmalloc -not- panic if given a
> > > too-large size? Principle of Least Surprises says it should return NULL
> > > at the very least.
> >
> > It's on purpose; to find the erroneous drivers.
> Unfortunately Linus forgot to provide a way to check if a kmalloc is too
> large so the drivers cannot work around it. Dave put an incredibly ugly
> constant assumption in af_unix for this and no doubt more will follow.
> So -ac added the constant
What about removing the BUG?

I means all drivers should be aware that kmalloc() > 16 kB fail quite
kmalloc() over 128 kB always fail.

Do you really prefer if drivers contain a

static inline void* safe_kmalloc(size, flags)
        if(size > LIMIT)
                return NULL;
        return kmalloc(size, flags);

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:17 EST