[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170925123621.35godwzhvw4wbisc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:36:21 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mremap.2: Add description of old_size == 0
functionality
On Wed 20-09-17 09:25:42, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
> BUGS
> Before Linux 4.14, if old_size was zero and the mapping referred
> to by old_address was a private mapping (mmap(2) MAP_PRIVATE),
> mremap() created a new private mapping unrelated to the original
> mapping. This behavior was unintended and probably unexpected in
> user-space applications (since the intention of mremap() is to
> create a new mapping based on the original mapping). Since Linux
> 4.14, mremap() fails with the error EINVAL in this scenario.
>
> Does that seem okay?
sorry to be late but yes this wording makes perfect sense to me.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists