(4/3/13 2:35 PM), Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says about coredump_filter bitmask,
>
> Note bit 0-4 doesn't effect any hugetlb memory. hugetlb memory are only
> effected by bit 5-6.
>
> However current code can go into the subsequent flag checks of bit 0-4
> for
(2013/04/04 3:35), Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says about coredump_filter bitmask,
>
>Note bit 0-4 doesn't effect any hugetlb memory. hugetlb memory are only
>effected by bit 5-6.
>
> However current code can go into the subsequent flag checks of bit 0-4
>
On Wed 03-04-13 14:35:37, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says about coredump_filter bitmask,
>
> Note bit 0-4 doesn't effect any hugetlb memory. hugetlb memory are only
> effected by bit 5-6.
>
> However current code can go into the subsequent flag checks of bit 0
On 04/03/2013 02:35 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says about coredump_filter bitmask,
Note bit 0-4 doesn't effect any hugetlb memory. hugetlb memory are only
effected by bit 5-6.
However current code can go into the subsequent flag checks of bit 0-4
for vma
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt says about coredump_filter bitmask,
Note bit 0-4 doesn't effect any hugetlb memory. hugetlb memory are only
effected by bit 5-6.
However current code can go into the subsequent flag checks of bit 0-4
for vma(VM_HUGETLB). So this patch inserts 'return' and ma
5 matches
Mail list logo