On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, James Sutherland 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.
No, it allows the promise to be a firm one.
> So other than turning the remote possibility of a problem into a
> guaranteed problem, the change achieves nothing. I don't think it'll make
> it into the tree, then :-)
No, it makes sure that programs needing to know that the memory they have
really is available will work. Most embedded systems are written with this
in mind. I would imagine many special-purpose computers could use this as
well (routers etc).
Peter
-- Peter Svensson ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint: <petersv@psv.nu> ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3 07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF <petersv@df.lth.se> ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...- 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 - 21:00:22 EST