From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BD68D0039 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 01:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (mail-iy0-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id p1160CrV014267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:00:13 -0800 Received: by iyj17 with SMTP id 17so5930953iyj.14 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:00:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110201010341.GA21676@google.com> References: <20110201010341.GA21676@google.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:59:52 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mlock: operate on any regions with protection != PROT_NONE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Tao Ma , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Hugh Dickins List-ID: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > > I am proposing to let mlock ignore vma protection in all cases except > PROT_NONE. What's so special about PROT_NONE? If you want to mlock something without actually being able to then fault that in, why not? IOW, why wouldn't it be right to just make FOLL_FORCE be unconditional in mlock? Linus -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org