linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <473BC168.4000206@gatworks.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:47:52 -0500
From:	"U. George" <netbeans@...works.com>
To:	Linux on Alpha processors <axp-list@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jay Estabrook <jay.estabrook@...com>
Subject: Re: Question about F_RDLCK and F_WRLCK on alpha

I suppose this can be better analyzed if the cpp output is presented to 
show exactly how rdlck/wrlck is included/defined .

But the only requirement is that the flags are unique. solong as wrlck 
!= rdlck != unlck every is happy.

There is no expectation that an i386 binary will run on an alpha machine.

there might be an issue if the i386 source code uses "0" or "1" 
constants instead of the WRLCK/RDLCK. And then compiled on the alpha. 
Then it would be out of sync.

I suppose they are different bec the folks at OSF had it defined that 
way. And there was some need to run OSF/alpha bins on a linux/alpha ( 
just a guess on my part )

Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Can someone explain me, why we have different define's for WRLCK and
> RDLCK within alpha kernel headers:
-
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/