Re: [Bug] mlockall() not working properly in 2.6.x

[Alan Cox]

On Llu, 2005-12-19 at 11:38 -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> How about clearing MCL_FUTURE on fork but allow exec to inherit it?
> That way a parent process could fork, mlockall in the child and exec a
> memlocked child.  A regular fork,exec by a memlocked parent would not
> create a memlocked child.
> 
> Seems less messy than a new flag, while keeping the benefits.

The behaviour of MCL_FUTURE is standards defined so we don't get to
change it. The behaviour of an added flag is up to us.

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