Re: [PATCH] Fix up MADV_DONTFORK/MADV_DOFORK definitions

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> 
>>    Andrew> yes, please do.
>>
>>OK, here's a patch that changes them to 9 and 10.  I would hold off
>>sending this to Linus until Michael has a chance to speak up, in case
>>there's a reason I don't know for choosing 0x30 and 0x31.
>>
> 
> Here
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113162971606408&w=2
> at the end there is a reasoning.

Well it may make userspace portability slightly easier for this
one case (exactly how, I'm not so sure because each architecture
has their own MADV_ defines anyway). I rather think this should
be left up to arch maintainers' numbering schemes, but...

> So I think 9 and 10 will do too.

s/too// ?

0x30 and 0x31 broke parisc's numbering scheme.

> By the way Nick was on CC list back than and haven't raised any 
> concerns :)
> 

I probably would have assumed it had gone past arch maintainers
and so wouldn't have given it a second thought: I don't know a
great deal about the issues here. I just now happened to see the
parisc comment.

But no harm done this time.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com