Re: [PATCH] Document kfree and vfree NULL usage (resend)

[Kernel Stuff <kernel-stuff@comcast.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

The attached patch changes the vfree() documentation to correct "May not be 
called in interrupt context" to "Must not be called in interrupt context". 
Latter is compliant to  RFC2119 and matches the absolute requirement for  
vfree.

Is not the same requirement true for vmalloc() - or is it ok to call vmalloc() 
in interrupt?

Parag

On Sunday 05 December 2004 11:59 am, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Kernel Stuff wrote:
> >>  *	May not be called in interrupt context
> >
> >Does this need to change to
> >      * Must not be called in interrupt context
> >?
> >Is there a case where it is guaranteed that kfree will not sleep?
>
> kfree never sleeps. The comment you mention is part of the vfree
> documentation.
>
> And you are right: for vfree, it's "must not be called". I'll send a
> separate patch. Or Andrew could just change it directly.
>
> --
>     Manfred
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[-- Attachment #2: patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 443 bytes --]

--- linux-mod/mm/vmalloc.c.orig	2004-12-05 12:40:50.699631616 -0500
+++ linux-mod/mm/vmalloc.c	2004-12-05 12:37:17.279076472 -0500
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ void __vunmap(void *addr, int deallocate
  *	Free the virtually contiguous memory area starting at @addr, as
  *	obtained from vmalloc(), vmalloc_32() or __vmalloc().
  *
- *	May not be called in interrupt context.
+ *	Must not be called in interrupt context.
  */
 void vfree(void *addr)
 {