On 05/22/2012 01:31 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:42:10AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: >> On 05/21/2012 09:19 AM, Seth Jennings wrote: >> >>> On 05/20/2012 09:23 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> >>>> We should use unsigned long as handle instead of void * to avoid any >>>> confusion. Without this, users may just treat zs_malloc return value as >>>> a pointer and try to deference it. >>> >>> >>> I wouldn't have agreed with you about the need for this change as people >>> should understand a void * to be the address of some data with unknown >>> structure. >>> >>> However, I recently discussed with Dan regarding his RAMster project >>> where he assumed that the void * would be an address, and as such, >>> 4-byte aligned. So he has masked two bits into the two LSBs of the >>> handle for RAMster, which doesn't work with zsmalloc since the handle is >>> not an address. >>> >>> So really we do need to convey as explicitly as possible to the user >>> that the handle is an _opaque_ value about which no assumption can be made. >> >> >> Wasn't really clear here. All that to say, I think we do need this patch. > > That sounds like an Acked-by ? Almost. I still need to know what the base is so I can apply the patchset and at least build it before I add my Ack. Thanks, Seth -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>