User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

Posted Jun 7, 2007 23:43 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (subscriber, #5246)
Parent article: The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

Even highly compressed data cannot be expected to fit into that space in all situations.

But isn't 1 close to 0 for small enough values of 1? ;-)


(Log in to post comments)

The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

Posted Jun 8, 2007 19:03 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]

Bits are not infinitesimal in software.

The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

Posted Jun 8, 2007 20:03 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (subscriber, #5246) [Link]

*nyrrroooooooooooooom* *nyyyyyrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooom*

That's the sound of both jokes going over your head. :-)

The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

Posted Jun 8, 2007 21:12 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

> Even highly compressed data cannot be expected to fit into that space in
all situations.

Sure it can. Just use a state-of-the-art 100% lossy algorithm.

(Maybe something similar to the "iterative compression" announced few
years ago. No, wait... You can't, that's already patented...)

The thorny case of kmalloc(0)

Posted Jun 8, 2007 21:22 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (subscriber, #5246) [Link]

Wow, that totally one-ups encryption's one-time-pad. See, with an OTP, the ciphertext can decrypt to any plaintext of the same length. With this compression algorithm, it can decompress to any message of any length!


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds