On 2007-04-25 12:56 -0500, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:50:48AM -0400, Oliver Gould wrote:
> > What am I doing that's anachronsitic?
> 
> Well, on -current/4.0 it would just be kmem_alloc(9), I suppose.

Thanks.  I had tried kmem_alloc a few days ago and changed it for some
reason...  I guess I'll try it again ;)

I see that the memoryallocators(9) manual happens to reference both
kmem_alloc(9) and uvm(9); but perhaps each should be added to the 'See
Also' section of the other's manual?  Or- maybe a note next to
uvm_km_alloc stating that kmem_alloc is preferable in most situations?

Also, I assume that this will change nothing wrt uvm_map_pageable,
right?

Thanks,
  - Oliver