On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:15:48AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:12:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Well there is now, and that is we are now using a bit in the 2nd
> > byte as flags. So I had to do away with -ve numbers there entirely.
> >
> > You could achieve a similar thing by using another bit in that byte
> > #define VM_FAULT_FAILED 0x20
> > and make that bit present in VM_FAULT_OOM and VM_FAULT_SIGBUS, then
> > do an unlikely test for that bit in your handler and branch away to
> > the slow path.
>
> That'll do as well, thanks.
Note that Ingo will not get replies from me anymore - Ingo is doing
sender callback checks on the From:/Sender: headers. Since my joejob
protection ensures that I never receive bounces to those addresses,
such callbacks fail. Hence his server rejects my messages.
I am not changing my policy on this - I get hammered with a tremendous
amount of such crap which tools like SA seem completely incapable of
dealing with, sorry.
(Note: this means that other folk, eg dwmw2, are in a similar position.)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |