Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:27:04 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, jeff@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 zone.9 Message-ID: <20020430152704.GH66061@daemon.ninth-circle.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020430110408.52854B-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <200204301426.g3UEQMk36833@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020430110408.52854B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-On [20020430 17:05], Andrew R. Reiter (arr@FreeBSD.org) wrote: >On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: >: Log: >: Document uma_zalloc() behaviour. > >You can also pass M_ZERO. That seems illogical for a certain number of reasons: 1. the documentation in the code explicitly only mentions M_WAITOK and M_NOWAIT 2. given the argument's name is `wait', specifying a M_ZERO does not make sense. I sincerely doubt this is what Jeff had in mind, if it works at all. I see the wait is passed is passed from uma_zalloc() to uma_zalloc_internal to slab_zalloc() to the backend supplier routine uma_alloc, which also gets it as wait. As first glance I cannot find any place where using M_ZERO would do what it is documented to do. So feel free to elaborate, but I still hold to my idea that it was not as intended and should be tested against. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai / Kita no Mono asmodai@wxs.nl, finger asmodai@ninth-circle.org http://www.softweyr.com/asmodai/ | http://www.tendra.org/ Beauty is a short-lived reign... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020430152704.GH66061>