>Damnit, Andrea! I have outlined the _theoretical_
>possibility of it happening _and_ the easy yet
If the possiblity is theorical it' s also doable in practice and you are
really allowed to use the theory to discover a way to cause my OOM patch
to fail.
According to me the OOM problem of 2.1 is not more an issue and you can
convince me that I am wrong _only_ causing my code to fail. If my code it'
s so obviously buggy and obviously wrong, should be trivial for you to
find _the_ way to reproduce failed allocation.
And btw I _only_ had very good report so far.
>What is wrong with that approach?
I don' t agree to add new features to workaround bugs.
If you would send me your patch via email privately (the web is too slow
to be browsed from here...) I would thank you and I' ll take a look at it.
Andrea Arcangeli
-
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/