Re: Proposal: Restore malloc(9) interface

On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 10:44:52PM +0000, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
 > Note: I am NOT proposing any substantive changes to the implementation
 > of the allocator -- I'm just proposing that we go back to the old
 > _interface_, using the new pool-cache-based _implementation_, and to
 > add lightweight per-CPU, per-tag usage counting to the malloc and free
 > paths.

Can we just add tags to kmem(9)? At this point that seems like a path
of lesser resistance, and also it avoids having a standard function
name with a nonstandard interface.

(Also, let's make the tags be typed as pointers instead of an enum)

-- 
David A. Holland
[email protected]