From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: bugzilla-daemon-590EEB7GvNiWaY/ihj7yzEB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: [Bug 97051] New: get_mempolicy(2) inconsistent with numaif.h
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:28:38 +0000
Message-ID:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path:
Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97051
Bug ID: 97051
Summary: get_mempolicy(2) inconsistent with numaif.h
Product: Documentation
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: man-pages
Assignee: documentation_man-pages-ztI5WcYan/vQLgFONoPN62D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
Reporter: nyh-TS7m/3hpY0sOpacJJkBjfT4kX+cae0hd@public.gmane.org
Regression: No
get_mempolicy(2)'s synopsis is:
#include
int get_mempolicy(int *mode, unsigned long *nodemask,
unsigned long maxnode, unsigned long addr,
unsigned long flags);
However, the actual prototype in numif.h (and implementation in numactl's
syscall.c) is subtly different:
long get_mempolicy(int *policy, const unsigned long *nmask,
unsigned long maxnode, void *addr, int flags);
The funny thing is, that prototype is isn't quite right either - it pretends
nmask is a const pointer, but it most definitely isn't, and the data pointed by
it get written to. But that isn't a man-page bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html