On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:15:48AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:12:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Well there is now, and that is we are now using a bit in the 2nd > > byte as flags. So I had to do away with -ve numbers there entirely. > > > > You could achieve a similar thing by using another bit in that byte > > #define VM_FAULT_FAILED 0x20 > > and make that bit present in VM_FAULT_OOM and VM_FAULT_SIGBUS, then > > do an unlikely test for that bit in your handler and branch away to > > the slow path. > > That'll do as well, thanks.
Note that Ingo will not get replies from me anymore - Ingo is doing sender callback checks on the From:/Sender: headers. Since my joejob protection ensures that I never receive bounces to those addresses, such callbacks fail. Hence his server rejects my messages. I am not changing my policy on this - I get hammered with a tremendous amount of such crap which tools like SA seem completely incapable of dealing with, sorry. (Note: this means that other folk, eg dwmw2, are in a similar position.) -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
