From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261831AbVF0Ftz (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:49:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261834AbVF0Ftz (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:49:55 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:8850 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261831AbVF0Fts (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:49:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:21:50 +0530 From: Prasanna S Panchamukhi To: Jeff Sipek Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , trivial@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH][TRIVIAL] Allocate kprobe_table at runtime Message-ID: <20050627055150.GA10659@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: prasanna@in.ibm.com References: <20050626183049.GA22898@optonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050626183049.GA22898@optonline.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff, On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 06:37:29PM +0000, Jeff Sipek wrote: > Allocates kprobe_table at runtime. > - /* FIXME allocate the probe table, currently defined statically */ > + kprobe_table = kmalloc(sizeof(struct hlist_head)*KPROBE_TABLE_SIZE, GFP_ATOMIC); Memory allocation using GFP_KERNEL has more chances of success as compared to GFP_ATOMIC. Why can't we use GFP_KERNEL here? Thanks Prasanna -- Prasanna S Panchamukhi Linux Technology Center India Software Labs, IBM Bangalore Ph: 91-80-25044636