On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 08:19:10PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:44:15PM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > I think you are trying to change the kernel in the wrong direction.
> > > It should not fail,
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:44:15PM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > I think you are trying to change the kernel in the wrong direction.
> > It should not fail, but handle the requests. Panic if there is a
> > bug.
> >
> > Why do you
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:43:30AM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
> > M_CANFAIL
> > In the M_WAITOK case, if not enough memory is available,
> > return NULL instead of calling panic(9). If mallocarray()
>
> Did you see such
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:43:30AM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
> M_CANFAIL
> In the M_WAITOK case, if not enough memory is available,
> return NULL instead of calling panic(9). If mallocarray()
Did you see such a panic? If yes it would be better to understand
and fix the root cause.
>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:09:23PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:58:56PM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
> > The diff below adds M_CANFAIL to the flag passed to malloc() since we are
> > able
> > to fail gracefully.
>
> I would not call a return ENOMEM a gracefull fail.
>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:58:56PM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
> The diff below adds M_CANFAIL to the flag passed to malloc() since we are able
> to fail gracefully.
I would not call a return ENOMEM a gracefull fail.
Usually if we can wait with M_WAITOK and everyting is fine afterwards,
that's a good
Hi,
The diff below adds M_CANFAIL to the flag passed to malloc() since we are able
to fail gracefully.
ok?
Index: sys/dev/pci/if_igc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/if_igc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.12
