Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264265AbTEaJyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2003 05:54:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264266AbTEaJyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2003 05:54:09 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:18593 "EHLO mtvmime02.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264265AbTEaJyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2003 05:54:09 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 11:09:41 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: Russell King cc: Jun Sun , , Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: Properly implement flush_dcache_page in 2.4? (Or is it possible?) In-Reply-To: <20030531101932.B19071@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 31 May 2003, Russell King wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:33:04AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > that's a possibility), the "unspecified" would allow that much - but > > wouldn't allow you to show portions of entirely other files! > > Other files should not be stored in the same page though - if that's > happening today, then we have a violation of POSIX, wrong from Linus' > "quality of implementation" standpoint, and its a security hole. Sorry, false alarm, I didn't mean to imply that was happening anywhere: I was just giving a throwaway example of how, though a standard might say "unspecified", there are still limits to what's allowed - yes, "quality of implementation" is a good measure. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/