From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 16 12:01:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15BF16A4D5 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:01:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D478643D39 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:01:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 80734 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2004 20:01:31 -0000 Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2004 20:01:31 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:01:29 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040216135620.K4491@odysseus.silby.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Scott Long cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_kern.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:01:33 -0000 On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Robert Watson wrote: > getting somewhere. I'm not sure what the right answer in procfs is, but I > think this isn't it. Maybe we need a new M_flag that says "And fail if > it's rediculous", but I'm very concerned that we just substituted memory > allocation semantics throughout the kernel and the impact it will have... > It could be harmless, but it's also not a change to make without a lot of > hard cogitation. > > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research If maintaining the old semantics is important, then adding a third flag sounds like the way to go. Unfortunately, I can't think of something appropriate that would fit into the form M_XXXXXX. I'm only jumping in because I had considered making a change similar to DES's back when I was investigating why the old pipe code could panic the machine; the current situation of panic vs NOWAIT is very frustrating. Mike "Silby" Silbersack