On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:44:36 +0200 Tilman Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:50:26 +0200 Esben Stien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > babbled: > > > >> Tilman Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>> all the linux memory overcommit behaviour more or less depends on > >>> the fact that it can allways save it's ass by using swap. (Instead > >>> of helplessley crashing) > >> Yes, or killing the application. Not having swap is nonsense;). If you > >> are using swap something is wrong, right, but then you fix it. I find > >> it strange that the debian install didn't make a little swap > >> partition. > > > > and luckily those smart fellas in kernel developer land.. made kernel > > overcommit.. a tunable parameter! and... cunningly.. on the FR (and as wel > > on my desktop) it's turned off! :) so... a moot point really. :) > > pardon? Honestly? This is absurd! > Why? I don't get it. > > I mean, how did you get the impression that overcomitting is a bad thing? when it makes: ---- myptr = malloc(somesize); if (myptr == NULL) return -1; // return and unwind // continue as normal ---- useless so i mayaswell do: ---- myptr = malloc(somesize); if (myptr == NULL) abort(); ---- ala glib. all that error checking code programs have becomes stupid. i should just assume all mallocs succeed!. as they likely will and part way through accessing the memory malloc actually returned - i may segv because i dont have enough ram. that's just bad! what's the point of error codes and returns then? whats the point of even trying to handle an error? :( may as well throw in the towel ala glib. -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
