Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:45:34 +0100 | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Subject | Re: refill_inactive() |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:17:54AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot > > allocate new buffer heads to do IO with?? > > No. > > New buffer heads would be ok - recursion is fine in theory, as long as it > is bounded, and we might bound it some other way (I don't think we > _should_ do recursion here due to the stack limit, but at least it's not > a fundamental problem).
Right, but we still need to be careful --- we _were_ getting stack overflows occassionally before the GFP_BUFFER semantics were set up to prevent that recursion.
--Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |