On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:36:34PM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > With __kmem_cache_free you would set #1 I hope, but if > > nobody would use this - debugging time wouldn't change. > > I think you got it backwards. I suggested making the _current_ > kmem_cache_free() deal with NULL (so everyone will get it) and add a new > optimized __kmem_cache_free() for those call-sites that really need it.
If you could assure optimized version will be used only with buggy-free code, so you don't waste time for debugging it, then I really got it backwards, sorry! > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > This could be acceptable, if there were no problems > > with fixing the errors. But there are problems - bugs > > like this aren't fixed on time - maybe because people > > waste too much time per bug? > > You're barking up the wrong tree here, Jarek. I strongly feel that we > should be more defensive in the slab for the exact reasons you outlined. > There's bunch of bug reports people seem to dismiss as slab errors where > in fact it's caused by a buggy caller. But I can see only one tree here. And I seem to agree with all the rest. So, I probably really got it backwards... Must be going to find the right tree, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/