Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:57:35 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic |
| |
Stone Wang wrote: > 2006/3/21, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>:
>>In what way are we not now posix compliant now? > > > Currently, Linux's mlock for example, may fail with only part of its > task finished. > > While accroding to POSIX definition: > > man mlock(2) > > " > RETURN VALUE > On success, mlock returns zero. On error, -1 is returned, errno is set > appropriately, and no changes are made to any locks in the address > space of the process. > " >
Looks like you're right, so good catch. You should probably try to submit your posix mlock patch by itself then. Make sure you look at the coding standards though, and try to _really_ follow coding conventions of the file you're modifying.
You also should make sure the patch works standalone (ie. not just as part of a set). Oh, and introducing a new field in vma for a flag is probably not the best option if you still have room in the vm_flags field.
And the patch changelog should contain the actual problem, and quote the relevant part of the POSIX definition, if applicable.
Thanks, Nick
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |