On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> > > If the system is simply low on memory, kmem_malloc() will block.
> > >
> > > So malloc() will generally not return NULL even in low memory
> > > situations
> > > unless the KVM map fills up, which isn't supposed to happen but can in
> > > certain severe circumstances. Callers should therefore check for NULL.
> >
> > Callers that check for NULL are bogus.
>
> If it can truly never return NULL, that's true. But it would also be
> true to say that callers that can't deal with a veto return and that
> can't guarantee deadlock avoidance are also bogus.
>
> I got the impression that my understanding of M_WAITOK's behaviour
> came from a discussion with you about it, but it looks like I was
> mistaken.
Everyone else's impression of malloc M_WAITOK's behavior has always been
that it could never return NULL, at least without (say) trying to allocate all
available kernel memory.
>
> --
> \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith
> \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ m...@smith.net.au
> \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msm...@freebsd.org
> \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msm...@cdrom.com
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
