On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/06/2009 06:58 PM, Ian Molton wrote: > > Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > > On 12/06/2009 01:25 AM, Ian Molton wrote: > > > > > > > Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not that it doesn't have a way to report failure, it's that it > > > > > doesn't fail. Do you prefer functions that fail and report it to > > > > > functions that don't fail? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a way of allocating memory that will _never_ fail? > > > > > > > Sort of. > > > > > 'sort of' never ? > > > > > > > Did you look at the code? > > > > > Yes. Its hardly infallible. > > > > It will never fail on Linux. On other hosts it prevents a broken oom handler > from taking the guest down a death spiral.
It fails here all the time i'm sorry to say, i have overcommit disabled (mostly because kpdf when doing a text search tends to overwhelm the VM subsystem and Linux happily picks X11 as it's OOM kill target) > > > > What about existing usage? Will you audit all the existing calls? > > > > > mark qemu_malloc as deprecated. don't include new patches that use it. > > Plenty of time to fix the broken uses... > > > > Send patches. I don't think it's realistic to handle OOM in qemu (handling > n=0 is easy, but a lot of work for no real gain). > -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
