Re: [PATCH] vm: mlock superfluous variable

[Chris Wright]

* Darren Hart (dvhltc@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> The were a couple long standing (since at least 2.4.21) superfluous 
> variables and two unnecessary assignments in do_mlock().  The intent of 
> the resulting code is also more obvious.
> 
> Tested on a 4 way x86 box running a simple mlock test program.  No 
> problems detected.

Did you test with multiple page ranges, and locking subsets of vmas?
Seems that splitting could cause a problem since you now sample vm_end
before and after fixup, where the vma could be changed in the middle.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/