> On 05/13/2010 11:40 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >>>> Anyway as this is a replacement for explicit tests, it shouldn't change > >>>> the behaviour in any way. Obviously when a user doesn't need virtually > >>>> contiguous space, he shouldn't use this interface at all. > >>> > >>> Why can't we make fdtable virtually contiguous free? > >> > >> This is possible, but the question is why to make the code more complex? > > > > because it's broken. > > Well, could you explain what exactly is broken about > x = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!x) > x = vmalloc(size); > ? Is is that kmalloc doesn't return until is has the memory to return > when asking for order(size) <= COSTLY_ORDER? I think this is expected. Well, but fdtable doesn't really need contenious memory. no? To make API mean we recommend to use it. but I don't hope to spread this wrong habit. Instead, to kill it seems better. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
