[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0902190412m5b473a39o8b8fffa3f58c83d8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:12:49 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chas Williams <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/7] slab: introduce kzfree()
2009/2/19 Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:50 +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> > > Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> > > > +void kzfree(const void *p)
>> > >
>> > > Shouldn't this be void * since it writes to the memory?
>> >
>> > No. kfree() writes to the memory as well to update freelists, poisoning
>> > and such so kzfree() is not at all different from it.
>
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:22 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> I don't think so. It's debetable thing.
>>
>> poisonig is transparent feature from caller.
>> but the caller of kzfree() know to fill memory and it should know.
>
> Debatable, sure, but doesn't seem like a big enough reason to make
> kzfree() differ from kfree().
Sure.
ok, I don't oppse this :)
--
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