| To: | Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: %u-order allocation failed |
| From: | Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 06 Oct 2001 18:59:34 +0100 |
| Cc: | Krzysztof Rusocki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011006164044.29342B-200000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011006164044.29342B-200000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .cz> |
| Reply-to: | Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
--On Saturday, 06 October, 2001 4:44 PM +0200 Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Here goes the fix. (note that I didn't try to compile it so there may be bugs, but you see the point). (seems to replace high order allocations by vmalloc) & how does vmalloc allocate physically (as opposed to virtually) contiguous memory; can't clearly recall it being IRQ safe either (for GFP_ATOMIC). -- Alex Bligh |
| Previous by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Anton Blanchard |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Pavel Machek |
| Next by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Alan Cox |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |