From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757952AbYHAHZA (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:25:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751383AbYHAHYx (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:24:53 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:49156 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106AbYHAHYw (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:24:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:23:40 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: mlock() return value issue in kernel 2.6.23.17 Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, halesh.s@india.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080731143032.2a211c18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080731211811.3CA9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080731143032.2a211c18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-Id: <20080801161651.FEBE.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.42 [ja] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.