From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F0E6B004D for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] - support inheritance of mlocks across fork/exec V2 From: Jon Masters In-Reply-To: <1228331069.6693.73.camel@lts-notebook> References: <1227561707.6937.61.camel@lts-notebook> <20081125152651.b4c3c18f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1228331069.6693.73.camel@lts-notebook> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:39:17 -0400 Message-Id: <1244176757.11597.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , riel@redhat.com, hugh@veritas.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 14:04 -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Add support for mlockall(MCL_INHERIT|MCL_RECURSIVE): FWIW, I really liked this patch series. And I think there is still value in a generic "mlock" wrapper utility that I can use. Sure, the later on containers suggestions are all wonderful in theory but I don't see that that went anywhere either (and I disagree that we can't trust people to use this right without doing silly things) - if I'm really right that this got dropped on the floor, can we resurrect it in .31 please? Jon. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org