[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.5 'what to expect'
Steven Cole wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 09:11, Larry McVoy wrote:
>>On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:00:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>On Gwe, 2003-07-11 at 15:46, Tomas Szepe wrote:
>>>>>>- gcc 3.2.2-5 as shipped by Red Hat generates incorrect code in the
>>>>>> kmalloc optimisation introduced in 2.5.71
>>>>>> See
>>>>>This URL appears wrong!
>>>>Nahh, that's just the same old annoying bkbits bug. Try with lynx...
>>>I did - it references a changeset unrelayed to kmalloc
>>I know, sorry. The version numbers in BK are not stable, they can't be.
>>You have to use the underlying internal version number. If someone who
>>knows can show me the output of
>> bk changes -r<correct rev>
>>for that changeset I will figure out a way to have a URL that doesn't change
>>and send it to Dave for that doc as well as post it there.
> This looks like the right one as currently numbered.
> Steven

There is no problem with the current version of this patch. I rewrote
the original patch to work around the bug in gcc. The bug is that:

if (size < X) return kmem_cache_alloc(...);

would not cause the remaining if statements to be marked as dead code, but:

if (size < X) goto found;
found: return kmem_cache_alloc(...);

does optimize properly.

Brian Gerst

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.098 / U:5.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site