Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:59:52 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kenneth.w.chen@intel.com
Subject: Re: disable-cap-mlock
Message-ID: <20040401165952.GM18585@dualathlon.random>
References: <20040401135920.GF18585@dualathlon.random> <20040401164825.GD791@holomorphy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040401164825.GD791@holomorphy.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1158
Lines: 21

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:25AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 03:59:20PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Oracle needs this sysctl, I designed it and Ken Chen implemented it. I
> > guess google also won't dislike it.
> > This is a lot simpler than the mlock rlimit and this is people really
> > need (not the rlimit). The rlimit thing can still be applied on top of
> > this. This should be more efficient too (besides its simplicity).
> > can you apply to mainline?
> > 	http://www.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.6/2.6.5-rc3-aa1/disable-cap-mlock-1
> 
> Something like this would have the minor advantage of zero core impact.
> Testbooted only. vs. 2.6.5-rc3-mm4

I certainly like this too (despite it's more complicated but it might
avoid us to have to add further sysctl in the future), Andrew what do
you prefer to merge? I don't mind either ways.
-
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/