On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/10/2012 09:34 AM, rajman mekaco wrote: > >> Any updates on this ? > > > There is still no usecase to demonstrate a problem, so no real > justification to merge the patch. Coming up with such a usecase > is up to the submitter of the patch. Maybe you didn't read my last email: If 2 different user-mode processes executing on 2 CPUs under 2 different users want to access the same shared memory through the shmctl(SHM_LOCK) / shmget(SHM_HUGETLB) / usr_shm_lock primitives, they could compete/spin even though their user_structs are different. Can you please correct me if I am missing some crucial point of understanding ? Or did you mean that I should update the ChangeLog with this kind of description ? > > -- > All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href