Re: route_output M_WAITOK

2017-03-06 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:22:57PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 08:16:43AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 03/03/17(Fri) 01:40, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:55:41AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > Actually the malloc(9) could be convert

Re: route_output M_WAITOK

2017-03-05 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 08:16:43AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 03/03/17(Fri) 01:40, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:55:41AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > Actually the malloc(9) could be converted to M_WAIT like the one in > > > rt_report() that claudio@ commented

Re: route_output M_WAITOK

2017-03-02 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 03/03/17(Fri) 01:40, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:55:41AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > Actually the malloc(9) could be converted to M_WAIT like the one in > > rt_report() that claudio@ commented like that: > > So let's do that. This avoids that we loose routing mes

route_output M_WAITOK

2017-03-02 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:55:41AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Actually the malloc(9) could be converted to M_WAIT like the one in > rt_report() that claudio@ commented like that: So let's do that. This avoids that we loose routing messages due to low memory. Note that we cannot wait in m_c