On Mon 05-11-18 19:19:28, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 05.11.2018 16:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
> >
> >
On Mon 05-11-18 19:19:28, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 05.11.2018 16:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
> >
> >
On 11/5/18 5:19 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 05.11.2018 16:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>> Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
>>
>> Makes sense
On 11/5/18 5:19 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 05.11.2018 16:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>> Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
>>
>> Makes sense
On 05.11.2018 16:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
Makes sense regardless of warnings stuff.
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka
But it must be
On 05.11.2018 16:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
Makes sense regardless of warnings stuff.
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka
But it must be
On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
Makes sense regardless of warnings stuff.
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka
But it must be moved below the GFP_KERNEL check!
> ---
>
On 11/1/18 11:09 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
Makes sense regardless of warnings stuff.
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka
But it must be moved below the GFP_KERNEL check!
> ---
>
On Thu 01-11-18 19:42:48, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 01.11.2018 15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 01-11-18 13:48:17, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > > >
On Thu 01-11-18 19:42:48, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 01.11.2018 15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 01-11-18 13:48:17, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > > >
On 01.11.2018 15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 01-11-18 13:48:17, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
I would go on and say that
On 01.11.2018 15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 01-11-18 13:48:17, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
I would go on and say that
On Thu 01-11-18 13:48:17, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
> >
> > I would go on and say that allocations with sizes too
On Thu 01-11-18 13:48:17, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
> >
> > I would go on and say that allocations with sizes too
On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
I would go on and say that allocations with sizes too large can actually
trigger a warning (once you have posted in the
On 01.11.2018 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
I would go on and say that allocations with sizes too large can actually
trigger a warning (once you have posted in the
On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
I would go on and say that allocations with sizes too large can actually
trigger a warning (once you have posted in the previous version outside
of the changelog area)
On Thu 01-11-18 13:09:16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
I would go on and say that allocations with sizes too large can actually
trigger a warning (once you have posted in the previous version outside
of the changelog area)
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
---
mm/util.c |4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index 8bf08b5b5760..f5f04fa22814 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -392,6 +392,9 @@ void
Allocations over KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE could be served only by vmalloc.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
---
mm/util.c |4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index 8bf08b5b5760..f5f04fa22814 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -392,6 +392,9 @@ void
20 matches
Mail list logo