[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005132236.ADJ57893.FLFFMtOVJHOOSQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:36:51 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: peterz@...radead.org, xiaosuo@...il.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hnguyen@...ibm.com, raisch@...ibm.com,
rolandd@...co.com, sean.hefty@...el.com, hal.rosenstock@...il.com,
divy@...lsio.com, James.Bottomley@...e.de, tytso@....edu,
adilger@....com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, menage@...gle.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: add generic adaptive large memory allocationAPIs
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> NAK, I really utterly dislike that inatomic argument. The alloc side
> doesn't function in atomic context either. Please keep the thing
> symmetric in that regards.
Excuse me. kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) may sleep (and therefore cannot be used in
atomic context). However, kfree() for memory allocated with kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
never sleep (and therefore can be used in atomic context).
Why kmalloc() and kfree() are NOT kept symmetric?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists