lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: mlock(1)
Date
On Friday 24 September 2004 13:41, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > 2. Problem is the execve(2) that the mlock(1) program would have to call.
> > This blows away the mappings which contain the locking info.
>
> Does it? The man page said it isn't inherited on fork(), but why wouldn't
> it be inherited on exec()?
>
From my mlock(2) manpage:
"...they are guaranteed to stay in RAM until the pages are unlocked by munlock
or munlockall, until the pages are unmapped via munmap, or until the process
terminates or starts another program with exec."

-Ryan
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.188 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site