Dear Hackers,
< said:
> > Interestingly, socreate() in Lite2 always does a can-wait malloc() so
> > our current soalloc(M_NOWAIT) does the same thing as Lite2 and is only
> > wrong if the FreeBSD change from can-wait to "can-wait-if p != 0"
> > change was needed and is still needed.
>
> When I i
< said:
> Interestingly, socreate() in Lite2 always does a can-wait malloc() so
> our current soalloc(M_NOWAIT) does the same thing as Lite2 and is only
> wrong if the FreeBSD change from can-wait to "can-wait-if p != 0"
> change was needed and is still needed.
When I initially revamped that code
Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> > sonewconn() calls soalloc(0).
>
> tcp_input() is a critical caller of sonewconn() and it obviously shouldn't
> sleep. But sonewconn() is called from process context elsewhere.
> sonewconn() has used a no-wait malloc() since at
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> > [About creeping bitrot:]
> > so = soalloc(p != 0);
-->
> > so = soalloc(td != 0);
-->
> > so = soalloc(M_NOWAIT);
> > [and proposed fixes:]
-->
> > so = soalloc(0);
or -->
> > so = soalloc(1);
> I
Bruce,
Please find the attached patch for socreate() in uipc_socket.c.
I think the code was supposed to call soalloc(0) rather then
soalloc(M_NOWAIT). Note M_NOWAIT defined as 1.
Is that a real typo or i'm missing something here?
soalloc(1) was intended (and was obtained by misspelling 1 as M_NO
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> Please find the attached patch for socreate() in uipc_socket.c.
> I think the code was supposed to call soalloc(0) rather then
> soalloc(M_NOWAIT). Note M_NOWAIT defined as 1.
>
> Is that a real typo or i'm missing something here?
soalloc(1) was inte
