On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am proposing to let mlock ignore vma protection in all cases except
> PROT_NONE.
What's so special about PROT_NONE? If you want to mlock something
without actually being able to then fault that in, why not?
IOW, why wouldn't it be right to just make FOLL_FORCE be unconditional in mlock?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>