* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK > > had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is > > applied separately to both -- more or less. > > Before the patch the count was doubled since a single page was counted > twice: Once because it was mlocked (marked with PG_mlock) and then again > because it was also pinned (the refcount was increased). Two different > things. Christoph, why are you *STILL* arguing?? You caused a *regression* in a userspace ABI plain and simple, and a security relevant one. Furtermore you modified kernel/events/core.c yet you never even Cc:-ed the parties involved ... All your excuses, obfuscation and attempts to redefine the universe to your liking won't change reality: it worked before, it does not now. Take responsibility for your action for christ's sake and move forward towards a resolution , okay? When can we expect a fix from you for the breakage you caused? Or at least a word that acknowledges that you broke a user ABI carelessly? Thanks, Ingo -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>