On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:02:28 +0800 > Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Dave Hansen wrote: >> > Remaining issues: >> > - How should we deal with out-of-range indexes, especially >> > in flex_array_get() which returns void*? ERR_PTR()? >> > BUG_ON()? return NULL (current behavior)? >> > - Should care be taken not to allow a flex_array_get() to >> > an index where no flex_array_put() was done? >> > - Should we decay further than just packing things into the >> > 'base' page? Should we actually kmalloc() less than a >> > page at times when it will fit? >> > >> >> I sugguest find some candidate users and see how this flex_array >> fits them. >> > Hmm, can't we rewrite cgroup->tasks file using this ? > I'll try some if I have time. > > -Kame > > > I can do that; it would go nicely on top of my procs file patch series, but probably wants to wait until after both patch series have been accepted (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/23/330 ) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
