On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 15:51 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2011, james_p_freyensee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Currently, kmalloc_index() can return -1, which can be > > passed right to the kmalloc_caches[] array, cause a > > No kmalloc_index() cannot return -1 for the use case that you are > considering here. The value passed as a size to > kmalloc_slab is bounded by 2 * PAGE_SIZE and kmalloc_slab will only return > -1 for sizes > 4M. So we will have to get machines with page sizes > 2M > before this can be triggered. > > Okay. I thought it would still be good to check for -1 anyways, even if machines today cannot go above 2M page sizes. I would think it would be better for software code to always make sure a case that this could never happen instead of relying on whatever physical hardware limits the linux kernel could be running on on today's machines or future machines, because technology has shown limits can change. I would think regardless what this code runs on, this is still a software flaw that can be considered not a good thing to allow lying around in software code that can easily be fixed. But again I'm fine with whatever is decided. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>