Re: mlockall() with MCL_FUTURE

From: Tom Rini (trini@kernel.crashing.org)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 10:01:41 EST

Next message: Bill Davidsen: "Re: New nanosecond stat patch for 2.5.44"
Previous message: Jaroslav Kysela: "[PATCH] MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE update && !CONFIG_PROC_FS"
In reply to: Amol Kumar Lad: "mlockall() with MCL_FUTURE"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:11:46PM -0500, Amol Kumar Lad wrote:
> Hi,
> I was just going through its implementation. If mlockall() is invoked
> with MCL_FUTURE, does it mean that all the existing locked mappings of
> process should get unlocked ? Attaching code segment from do_mlockall().
> I am using 2.4.18 kernel

There is a problem here which is fixed in 2.4.19, I believe.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Bill Davidsen: "Re: New nanosecond stat patch for 2.5.44"
Previous message: Jaroslav Kysela: "[PATCH] MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE update && !CONFIG_PROC_FS"
In reply to: Amol Kumar Lad: "mlockall() with MCL_FUTURE"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:42 EST