svn commit: r328218 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 arm/xscale/ixp425 arm64/arm64 cam cam/ctl compat/ndis dev/aacraid dev/advansys dev/ath dev/beri/virtio dev/bnxt dev/bwn dev/ciss dev/cxgbe/crypto dev/...

[Warner Losh]

On Jan 24, 2018 11:33 AM, "Conrad Meyer" <cem at freebsd.org> wrote:

Bruce didn't get this wrong, you've just misread his (style / opinion)
complaint as an actual bug (which is kind of the whole reason why it's
hard to treat his complaints seriously):

> size_t happens to have the same representation as u_long on all supported
arches

So yes, the check works on i386.


I confused off_t and size_t, so much of what I said turns out not to be
relevant.

I'd be fine with just fixing the style issue, renaming WOULD_OVERFLOW to
malloc_would_overrflow and using that for most of the NO_WAIT cases as a
precheck....

Warner

Warner

Best,
Conrad

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> Does mallocarray(10 ,1Gb) panic on i386? It does not. It should.
>
> Warner
>
> On Jan 24, 2018 11:20 AM, "Conrad Meyer" <cem at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> Please point out what in Bruce's rant is actually relevant.  Again, I
>> usually start reading them and get sidetracked in things that are
>> opinions stated as fact, or outright incorrect.  At which point, I
>> give up on them.
>>
>