https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97051 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> --- Andi, could you comment on this bug? Thanks, Michael On 22 April 2015 at 00:28, <bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97051 > > Bug ID: 97051 > Summary: get_mempolicy(2) inconsistent with numaif.h > Product: Documentation > Version: unspecified > Hardware: All > OS: Linux > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P1 > Component: man-pages > Assignee: documentation_man-pages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Reporter: nyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Regression: No > > get_mempolicy(2)'s synopsis is: > > #include <numaif.h> > > int get_mempolicy(int *mode, unsigned long *nodemask, > unsigned long maxnode, unsigned long addr, > unsigned long flags); > > However, the actual prototype in numif.h (and implementation in numactl's > syscall.c) is subtly different: > > long get_mempolicy(int *policy, const unsigned long *nmask, > unsigned long maxnode, void *addr, int flags); > > The funny thing is, that prototype is isn't quite right either - it pretends > nmask is a const pointer, but it most definitely isn't, and the data pointed by > it get written to. But that isn't a man-page bug. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
