On Wed 17-05-17 10:12:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:03:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > +static inline bool alloc_array_check(size_t n, size_t size)
> > +{
> > + if (size != 0 && n > SIZE_MAX / size)
> > + return false;
> > + return true;
>
> Just retu
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:03:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-05-17 08:38:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:55:08AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko
> > >
> > > drm_[cm]alloc* has grown their own kvmalloc with vmalloc fallback
> > > implementati
On Wed 17-05-17 08:38:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:55:08AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > drm_[cm]alloc* has grown their own kvmalloc with vmalloc fallback
> > implementations. MM has grown kvmalloc* helpers in the meantime. Let's
> > use those b
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:55:08AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> drm_[cm]alloc* has grown their own kvmalloc with vmalloc fallback
> implementations. MM has grown kvmalloc* helpers in the meantime. Let's
> use those because it a) reduces the code and b) MM has a better idea
From: Michal Hocko
drm_[cm]alloc* has grown their own kvmalloc with vmalloc fallback
implementations. MM has grown kvmalloc* helpers in the meantime. Let's
use those because it a) reduces the code and b) MM has a better idea
how to implement fallbacks (e.g. do not vmalloc before kmalloc is tried
5 matches
Mail list logo
