* Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> > had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> > applied separately to both -- more or less.
>
> Before the patch the count was doubled since a single page was counted
> twice: Once because it was mlocked (marked with PG_mlock) and then again
> because it was also pinned (the refcount was increased). Two different
> things.
Christoph, why are you *STILL* arguing??
You caused a *regression* in a userspace ABI plain and simple, and a
security relevant one. Furtermore you modified kernel/events/core.c yet
you never even Cc:-ed the parties involved ...
All your excuses, obfuscation and attempts to redefine the universe to
your liking won't change reality: it worked before, it does not now. Take
responsibility for your action for christ's sake and move forward towards
a resolution , okay?
When can we expect a fix from you for the breakage you caused? Or at least
a word that acknowledges that you broke a user ABI carelessly?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
