linux-kernel - Question about F_RDLCK and F

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <473B600E.9030703@linux-kernel.at>
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:52:30 +0100
From:	Oliver Falk <oliver@...ux-kernel.at>
To:	Linux on Alpha processors <axp-list@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jay Estabrook <jay.estabrook@...com>
Subject: Question about F_RDLCK and F_WRLCK on alpha

Hi!

Can someone explain me, why we have different define's for WRLCK and
RDLCK within alpha kernel headers:

Alpha system:

asm/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK             1
asm-generic/fcntl.h:#ifndef F_RDLCK
asm-generic/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK             0
bits/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK            1       /* Read lock.  */

Intel system:

asm-generic/fcntl.h:#ifndef F_RDLCK
asm-generic/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK             0
bits/fcntl.h:#define F_RDLCK            0       /* Read lock.  */

I would say F_RDLCK should better be 0 as in i386, but I also guess that
changing this would break many things, wouldn't it?

I don't want to tell you my (long) story, how I found that and why I was
searching for it :-(

(Jay, you know what I'm talkin' about, don't you?)


Well, maybe my kernel headers are just packaged up like crap!?


Best,
 Oliver

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/