| To: | Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:46:05 -0700 |
| Cc: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040729212501.GA10878@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040728103708.GA26088@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407281035240.32423-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040728163220.GA28915@xxxxxxxxx> <1091038172.7002.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040729212501.GA10878@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:25:01PM +0200, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote: > Could these crashes be related to the 4KSTACKS which Steve Lord > seems to be advising against? Unrelated. IRIX memory allocations never fail they just might take forever. Under Linux they can fail so the callers have to be aware of this and check for this and retry as required. XFS under Linux didn't do this everywhere it should previously so memory allocations could fail and you would see null pointer dereference problems. --cw |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | XFS and loop-aes speed?, julius |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla, Jan-Frode Myklebust |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla, Rainer Traut |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |