From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:46:07 -0700 Message-ID: <574F114F.8010701@sr71.net> References: <20160531152814.36E0B9EE@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20160531152824.2B18E890@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20160601104333.7c2014fa@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160601104333.7c2014fa@lwn.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 06/01/2016 09:43 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> > +There are 5 system calls which directly interact with pkeys: >> > + >> > + int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) >> > + int pkey_free(int pkey); >> > + int sys_pkey_mprotect(unsigned long start, size_t len, >> > + unsigned long prot, int pkey); >> > + unsigned long pkey_get(int pkey); >> > + int pkey_set(int pkey, unsigned long access_rights); > sys_pkey_mprotect() should just be pkey_mprotect(), right? Yes, and that are a few more instances of that farther down in the file. I'll fix them all up. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www.sr71.net ([198.145.64.142]:42465 "EHLO blackbird.sr71.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757607AbcFAQwY (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:52:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] pkeys: add details of system call use to Documentation/ References: <20160531152814.36E0B9EE@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20160531152824.2B18E890@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20160601104333.7c2014fa@lwn.net> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <574F114F.8010701@sr71.net> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:46:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160601104333.7c2014fa@lwn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com Message-ID: <20160601164607.Xh7DLKKzh224rIgxmPBBNSG-yZZ3g9KFMIglDdQ1MjI@z> On 06/01/2016 09:43 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> > +There are 5 system calls which directly interact with pkeys: >> > + >> > + int pkey_alloc(unsigned long flags, unsigned long init_access_rights) >> > + int pkey_free(int pkey); >> > + int sys_pkey_mprotect(unsigned long start, size_t len, >> > + unsigned long prot, int pkey); >> > + unsigned long pkey_get(int pkey); >> > + int pkey_set(int pkey, unsigned long access_rights); > sys_pkey_mprotect() should just be pkey_mprotect(), right? Yes, and that are a few more instances of that farther down in the file. I'll fix them all up.