From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <442424FF.3090405@yahoo.com.au> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:57:35 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic References: <441FEF8D.7090905@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Stone Wang Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Stone Wang wrote: > 2006/3/21, Nick Piggin : >>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, 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