[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47D1352F.6010504@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:29:35 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86, fpu: lazy allocation of FPU area - v3
Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2008-03-06 16:51:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>>
>>>>> kmem_cache_alloc() can fail (return NULL) and not handling it is a
>>>>> bug.
>>>> oops. you are correct. Will send a sigsegv in the failure case then.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> You are introducing possibility of hard to debug error, where previous
>>> code just worked... Does not look like good idea to me.
>> hm, how does it differ from any other allocation failure? We could fail
>
> Well, we should not be sending SIGSEGV...? SIGBUS would be cleaner, or
> SIGKILL... what happens when userland tries to catch this one?
>
I'm confused...
Normally when we need memory for userspace and can't get it, we put the
process to sleep until memory is available.
Why is this different in any way?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists