On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:58 AM, yalin wang <yalin.wang2...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-05-18 21:04 GMT+08:00 Anisse Astier <ani...@astier.eu>: >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote: >>> >>> Ok. So there is class of errors where this helps, but you are not >>> aware of any such errors in kernel, so you can't fix them... Right? >> >> Correct. >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > i feel your patch is the same as CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC , > the difference is that CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC will clear > page to a magic number, while your patch will > clear to zero, > do we really need this duplicated function ?
It's different because DEBUG_PAGEALLOC will only use page poisoning on certain architectures, and clearing a page to a magic number doesn't allow to optimize alloc with _GFP_ZERO. Regards, Anisse -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
