On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better if we move the null pointer test and the panic()
> > inside kmem_cache_create() similar to this
>
> Most kmem_cache_creates should not be fatal. I question the socket one
> in some ways
because it is ok to have a protocol family com
> Wouldn't it be better if we move the null pointer test and the panic()
> inside kmem_cache_create() similar to this
Most kmem_cache_creates should not be fatal. I question the socket one
in some ways
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a mess
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> The sock slab cache is critical so one ought to panic if it can't be
> created, like we do for all other slab caches.
>
> Regards,
> Tigran
>
> --- linux/net/core/sock.c Thu Aug 24 08:08:47 2000
> +++ work/net/core/sock.c Wed
Hi Linus,
The sock slab cache is critical so one ought to panic if it can't be
created, like we do for all other slab caches.
Regards,
Tigran
--- linux/net/core/sock.c Thu Aug 24 08:08:47 2000
+++ work/net/core/sock.cWed Aug 30 13:13:48 2000
@@ -609,7 +609,9 @@
{
sk_cache
4 matches
Mail list logo
