; > > Subject: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix VM_MAYSHARE mappings for NOMMU
> > >
> > > I take it that "ramfs" was intended here.
> >
> > They're two names for the same thing; I'm not sure which should be
> > preferred.
>
> Or maybe not... the rela
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 08:41:24PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:09:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:19:44 -0400 Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix VM_MAYSHARE mappings for NOMMU
> >
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:09:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:19:44 -0400 Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > Subject: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix VM_MAYSHARE mappings for NOMMU
>
> I take it that "ramfs" was intended here.
They're two names for the same
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:19:44 -0400 Rich Felker wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix VM_MAYSHARE mappings for NOMMU
I take it that "ramfs" was intended here.
> The nommu do_mmap expects f_op->get_unmapped_area to either succeed or
> return -ENOSYS for VM_MAYSHARE (
The nommu do_mmap expects f_op->get_unmapped_area to either succeed or
return -ENOSYS for VM_MAYSHARE (e.g. private read-only) mappings.
Returning addr in the non-MAP_SHARED case was completely wrong, and
only happened to work because addr was 0. However, it prevented
VM_MAYSHARE mappings from shar
5 matches
Mail list logo