John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-09:
> On Saturday 07 November 2009 9:19:05 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > no problem. i've sent the final patch as followup to kern/71258 and
> > also
> > attached it to this message. to make it short. what's being changed
> > by the
> > patch:
> > 1) if MAP_ANON is d
On Saturday 07 November 2009 9:19:05 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> no problem. i've sent the final patch as followup to kern/71258 and also
> attached it to this message. to make it short. what's being changed by the
> patch:
>
> 1) if MAP_ANON is defined and offset !=0 > return EINVAL
> 2) if
no problem. i've sent the final patch as followup to kern/71258 and also
attached it to this message. to make it short. what's being changed by the
patch:
1) if MAP_ANON is defined and offset !=0 > return EINVAL
2) if MAP_STACK is defined and offset !=0 > offset = 0
would be great if
Alan Cox schrieb am 2009-11-04:
> Ed Schouten wrote:
> >* Alan Cox wrote:
> For what it's worth, I believe that Solaris does the exact opposite.
> >>They provide MAP_ANONYMOUS for compatibility. It seems like a good
> >>idea for us to do the same.
> >Something like this?
> >Index: mman.h
> >=
Ed Schouten wrote:
* Alan Cox wrote:
For what it's worth, I believe that Solaris does the exact opposite.
They provide MAP_ANONYMOUS for compatibility. It seems like a good
idea for us to do the same.
Something like this?
Index: mman.h
===
* Alan Cox wrote:
> For what it's worth, I believe that Solaris does the exact opposite.
> They provide MAP_ANONYMOUS for compatibility. It seems like a good
> idea for us to do the same.
Something like this?
Index: mman.h
===
---
Ed Schouten wrote:
* John Baldwin wrote:
Note that the spec doesn't cover MAP_ANON at all FWIW.
Yes. I've noticed Linux also uses MAP_ANONYMOUS instead of MAP_ANON.
They do provide MAP_ANON for compatibility, if I remember correctly.
For what it's worth, I believe that Solaris d
* John Baldwin wrote:
> Note that the spec doesn't cover MAP_ANON at all FWIW.
Yes. I've noticed Linux also uses MAP_ANONYMOUS instead of MAP_ANON.
They do provide MAP_ANON for compatibility, if I remember correctly.
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpxciIJov3Hf.pgp
Description: PGP s
On Tuesday 03 November 2009 12:24:52 pm Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> * Alan Cox wrote:
> > The standards for mmap(2) actually disallow values of "off" that are not a
> > multiple of the page size.
> >
> > See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/functions/mmap.html for
> > the foll
Alexander Best schrieb am 2009-11-03:
> Alexander Best schrieb am 2009-11-03:
> > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-03:
> > > On Monday 02 November 2009 5:14:27 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > > > On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
>
Hi Alan,
* Alan Cox wrote:
> The standards for mmap(2) actually disallow values of "off" that are not a
> multiple of the page size.
>
> See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/functions/mmap.html for
> the following:
>
Just by accident I saw they changed that behaviour in a newer ve
Alexander Best schrieb am 2009-11-03:
> John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-03:
> > On Monday 02 November 2009 5:14:27 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > > On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> >
John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-03:
> On Monday 02 November 2009 5:14:27 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > > > On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Ale
On Monday 02 November 2009 5:14:27 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > > On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > > John Baldwin schr
John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21:
> > > > > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am
On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21:
> > > > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > > although the m
John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21:
> > > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
> > > > "The offset argumen
On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21:
> > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am Alexander Best wrote:
> > > although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
>
> > > "The offset argument is ignored."
>
> > > this doesn't seem to
John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21:
> On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am Alexander Best wrote:
> > although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
> > "The offset argument is ignored."
> > this doesn't seem to be true. running
> > printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NON
Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Alexander Best <
alexbes...@math.uni-muenster.de> wrote:
although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
"The offset argument is ignored."
this doesn't seem to be true. running
printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE,
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am Alexander Best wrote:
> although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
>
> "The offset argument is ignored."
>
> this doesn't seem to be true. running
>
> printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANON, -1,
> 0x12345678));
>
> an
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Alexander Best <
alexbes...@math.uni-muenster.de> wrote:
> although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
>
> "The offset argument is ignored."
>
> this doesn't seem to be true. running
>
> printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANON, -
although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
"The offset argument is ignored."
this doesn't seem to be true. running
printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANON, -1,
0x12345678));
and
printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANON, -1, 0));
produc
23 matches
Mail list logo
