On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
The UMA zone can't be made smaller than it is, while IP port ranges can
vary in both directions.
Hm, it can't be made smaller because we're using UMA_ZONE_NOFREE... why are
we using that? Shouldn't locking handle that, rwatson? :)
Hm, it's been UMA_ZONE_NOFREE since day one. The reason may or may not be
relevant after all the work rwatson has done with locking.
Unless the monitoring model is changed, this remains 100% necessary, or we may
find ourselves performing mutex operations on uninitialized mutexes,
corrupting kernel memory, or exporting other kernel data structures improperly
to user space.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
