On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 07:27 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 12:08 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 22:40 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hi Davidlohr,
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 15:16 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>>> Hi Manfred,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Manfred Spraul
> >>>> <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the increase of SHMMAX/SHMALL is now a 4 patch series.
> >>>>> I don't have ideas how to improve it further.
> >>>>
> >>>> On the assumption that your patches are heading to mainline, could you
> >>>> send me a man-pages patch for the changes?
> >>>
> >>> Btw, I think that the code could still use some love wrt documentation.
> >>
> >> (Agreed.)
> >>
> >>> Andrew, please consider this for -next if folks agree. Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> 8<----------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] ipc,shm: document new limits in the uapi header
> >>>
> >>> This is useful in the future and allows users to
> >>> better understand the reasoning behind the changes.
> >>>
> >>> Also use UL as we're dealing with it anyways.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/uapi/linux/shm.h | 14 ++++++++------
> >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/shm.h b/include/uapi/linux/shm.h
> >>> index 74e786d..e37fb08 100644
> >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/shm.h
> >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/shm.h
> >>> @@ -8,17 +8,19 @@
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> - * SHMMAX, SHMMNI and SHMALL are upper limits are defaults which can
> >>
> >> Something is wrong in the line above (missing word(s)?) ("are upper
> >> limits are defaults")
> >>
> >>> - * be modified by sysctl.
> >>> + * SHMMNI, SHMMAX and SHMALL are the default upper limits which can be
> >>> + * modified by sysctl. Both SHMMAX and SHMALL have their default values
> >>> + * to the maximum limit which is as large as it can be without helping
> >>> + * userspace overflow the values. There is really nothing the kernel
> >>> + * can do to avoid this any variables. It is therefore not advised to
> >>
> >> Something is missing in that last line.
> >>
> >>> + * make them any larger. This is suitable for both 32 and 64-bit systems.
> >>
> >> "This" is not so clear. I suggest replacing with an actual noun.
> >
> > Good point. Perhaps 'These values are ...' would do instead.
>
> That's better.
>
> Did you miss the first point I raised above?
No, actually our emails crossed paths and I had sent a suggestion before
I replied to yours: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/6/613
Thanks.
Davidlohr
--
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>