Re: [PATCH] madvise MADV_DONTFORK/MADV_DOFORK

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

    Nick> May I ask, what is the rationale for ignoring the apparent
    Nick> conventions of all architectures? For example parisc, you
    Nick> appear to even go contrary to the comment.

Looking through include/asm-*/mman.h, I have to agree.  The parisc
example seemly especially bad, as (in addition to being in the
reserved range as Nick notes) the DONTFORK/DOFORK values are stuck in
a block with the page size values instead of the previous block where
they seem more sensible.  However, in other files like the alpha
version, where the rest of the values are in decimal, the hex defines
look rather jarring.

Michael, what led you to choose 0x30 and 0x31 for the two new values?
It does seem that keeping them uniform across architectures is a
reasonable thing to do, but as far as I can tell the values 9 and 10
are unused on all architectures, and have the added merit of not
falling in the parisc reserved range.

Do we still have a chance to change this?

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux