On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:04:00AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> >i still think disabling entry merging (or, not to free memory for
>> >merged entries, at least) is a "real" fix because it's a design flaw
>> >to require memory allocation to free memory.
>> 
>> you can call it a design flaw if you want to, but imho it's more of a
>> flaw to consume more memory up front simply so that you don't have to
>> allocate it later.
>
>reserving memory for later use is a common practice.
>it's far better than relying upon pure luck.

reserving memory is fine.

rampantly allocating map entries (which happens when merging is
disabled) so that you'll never need to allocate a new one in order to
free is not quite the same thing.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."