Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:34:39 +0900 | From | Kentaro Takeda <> | Subject | Re: [TOMOYO #12 (2.6.28-rc2-mm1) 05/11] Memory and pathname management functions. |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: >>> Note that I said "kmalloc", not "kzalloc". This function zeroes >>> everything all the time, and surely that is not necessary. It's just a >>> waste of CPU time. >>> >> Callers of tmy_alloc assume that allocated memory is zeroed. > > That isn't the point. For programmer convenience we could make > __alloc_pages() and kmalloc() zero all the memory too. But we don't > because it is slow. Are you saying "make the callers of tmy_alloc() tolerable with uninitialized memory"?
>>>> +/** >>>> + * tmy_read_memory_counter - Check for memory usage. >>>> + * >>>> + * @head: Pointer to "struct tmy_io_buffer". >>>> + * >>>> + * Returns memory usage. >>> In what units? Megabytes? >>> >> In bytes. > > Let me rephrase: > > The comment over tmy_read_memory_counter() fails to tell the reader > what units are used for the return value. It should do so. I see. Replaced "Check for memory usage." by "Check for memory usage in bytes". Thanks.
>> Creating pseudo files for each variables is fine, though I don't see >> advantage by changing from >> "echo Shared: 16777216 > /sys/kernel/security/tomoyo/meminfo" to >> "echo 16777216 > /sys/kernel/security/tomoyo/quota/shared_memory". > > Well for starters, the existing interface is ugly as sin and will make > kernel developers unhappy. > > There is a pretty strict one-value-per-file rule in sysfs files, and > "multiple tagged values in one file" violates that a lot. /sys/kernel/security/ is not sysfs but securityfs. Does "one-value-per-file rule" also apply to securityfs?
Regards,
| |