Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:46:16 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:44:19 -0400 >> > Subject: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix mmap failure in unaligned size request >> > >> > As reported in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56881, current >> > kernel returns -EINVAL unless a given mmap length is "almost" hugepage >> > aligned. This is because in sys_mmap_pgoff() the given length is passed to >> > vm_mmap_pgoff() as it is without being aligned with hugepage boundary. >> > >> > This is a regression introduced in commit 40716e29243d "hugetlbfs: fix >> > alignment of huge page requests", where alignment code is pushed into >> > hugetlb_file_setup() and the variable len in caller side is not changed. >> > >> > To fix this, this patch partially reverts that commit, and changes >> > the type of parameter size from size_t to (size_t *) in order to >> > align the size in caller side. >> >> After the change af73e4d9506d3b797509f3c030e7dcd554f7d9c4 we have >> alignment related failures in libhugetlbfs test suite. misalign test >> fails with 3.10-rc5, while it works with 3.9. > > What does this mean. Is 3.10-rc5 more strict, or less strict? > > If "less strict" then that's expected and old userspace should be OK > with the change and the test should be updated (sorry). 3.10_rc5 is less strict. Also Naoya Horiguchi updated that relevant changes to libhugetlbfs test is also posted at http://www.mail-archive.com/libhugetlbfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg13317.html -aneesh -- 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>