From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756842AbYHAIu2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:50:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752463AbYHAIuS (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:50:18 -0400 Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.67]:55269 "EHLO webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752424AbYHAIuR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:50:17 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1170 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:50:17 EDT X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.232) by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 1 Aug 2008 08:30:46 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Halesh S" To: "KOSAKI Motohiro" , "Andrew Morton" Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, halesh.s@india.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, madhvesh.s@ap.sony.com, halesh.sadashiv@ap.sony.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:00:45 -0530 Subject: Re: mlock() return value issue in kernel 2.6.23.17 X-Originating-Ip: 125.17.166.34 X-Originating-Server: ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com Message-Id: <20080801083046.15330CB59C@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Thanks everyone. I confirm that the patch fixes the issue with Rlimit and invalid address. Signed-off-by: halesh.sadashiv@ap.sony.com Thanks, Halesh > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "KOSAKI Motohiro" > To: "Andrew Morton" > Subject: Re: mlock() return value issue in kernel 2.6.23.17 > Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:23:40 +0900 > > > Hi Andrew, > > > I assume that you tested it too? > > Yes, my x86_64 box works well. > > sorry, ambiguity e-mail. > > halesh's test check two point. > - mlock rlimit > - invlid address range > > and, I think rlimit already works well. > So, I ask halesh re-confirming. > > > If it comes down to a choice between complying with SuS versus > > complying with earlier Linux versions then we'd usually prefer to > > comply with earlier Linux versions. > > I see. > > > I queued this, but would prefer to await confirmation that it has been > > tested to take us back to the 2.6.18 interface, please. > > Yes. > this patch wasn't tested on split-lru yet. > I'll do that. (and probably fix it) > > > Also, please send a Signed-off-by: for this change. > > Agghh, sorry. it is stupid forgotten. > = -- _______________________________________________ Search for products and services at: http://search.mail.com