Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:57:56 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: gibbs@plutotech.com (Justin T. Gibbs), nate@mt.sri.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: callouts in CAM (was Re: cvs commit:) Message-ID: <199709231658.KAA25032@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:20:31 -0000." <199709231620.JAA10443@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Where is the max allocation up front? I allocate on demand. > >There is no reason not to watermark the free pool. It has the advantage >that you can return memory to the system, and allocations can occur in >page units. Sure, but that is not the case for the timeout and untimeout interface, which, if you recall is what we are talking about. If a client calls timeout and there are not entries left, and a new one cannot be allocated, the interface does not allow this error to be propagated to the client. If, on the other hand, the client is responsible for allocating it's entry before it is used, the client can be smart about the failure. I don't want to change all of the clients of the timeout interface to make them handle a resource failure. I only want to modify the "heavy users" and leave a common pool for other users of the interface. > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org >--- >Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present >or previous employers. > -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709231658.KAA25032>