Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> But last time this discussion came up, IIRC you ended up handwaving
> about all the ways in which SLOB was broken but didn't actually come
> up with any real problems. Matt seemed willing to add those counters
> or whatever it was if/when doing so solved a real problem. And remember
> that SLOB doesn't have to have feature parity with SLUB, so long as it
> implements the slab API such that the kernel *works*.

No it does not have to have feature parity. And yes we identified areas in 
which SLOB may cause problems due to not implementing things (f.e. 
suspend resume). The counters are still missing and thus core development 
cannot rely on those being there.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/