> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:32:34AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 09:01:01AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> >> xmalloc_cacheline API is relatively new. It's better
>> >> not to inherit the kludge from xmalloc. This kind of
>> >> kludge rather hurts these days.
>>
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:32:34AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 09:01:01AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> xmalloc_cacheline API is relatively new. It's better
> >> not to inherit the kludge from xmalloc. This kind of
> >> kludge rather hurts these days.
> >>
>
> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 09:01:01AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> xmalloc_cacheline API is relatively new. It's better
>> not to inherit the kludge from xmalloc. This kind of
>> kludge rather hurts these days.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi
>
> I see basically three alternatives fo
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 09:01:01AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> xmalloc_cacheline API is relatively new. It's better
> not to inherit the kludge from xmalloc. This kind of
> kludge rather hurts these days.
>
> Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi
I see basically three alternatives for xmalloc(0
xmalloc_cacheline API is relatively new. It's better
not to inherit the kludge from xmalloc. This kind of
kludge rather hurts these days.
Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi
---
lib/util.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/lib/util.c b/lib/util.c
index 1ebe22a..464d730 100644
---
