On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:28:12 +0400, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 03:21 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Please fix __vmalloc_node_range() instead to return ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
> > And of course, vfree() to use ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR().
>
> For the convenience and uniformity, should {alloc,free}_per
On 01/27/2012 03:21 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Please fix __vmalloc_node_range() instead to return ZERO_SIZE_PTR.
And of course, vfree() to use ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR().
For the convenience and uniformity, should {alloc,free}_percpu() be
also modified in that way?
Dmitry
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:19:16 +0400, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> For the architectures with it's own module_alloc(), if module init
> size is zero, avoiding module_alloc_update_bounds() and memset()
> no-op calls also eliminates warn_alloc_failed() zero-size warning
> in __vmalloc_node_range().
>
> S
For the architectures with it's own module_alloc(), if module init
size is zero, avoiding module_alloc_update_bounds() and memset()
no-op calls also eliminates warn_alloc_failed() zero-size warning
in __vmalloc_node_range().
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov
---
kernel/module.c | 31 ++