Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030214AbWBMW2Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:28:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030215AbWBMW2P (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:28:15 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:18053 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030214AbWBMW2P (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:28:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:27:54 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Hugh Dickins cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , William Irwin , Roland Dreier , Nick Piggin , Gleb Natapov , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , openib-general@openib.org, Petr Vandrovec , Badari Pulavarty Subject: Re: [openib-general] Re: madvise MADV_DONTFORK/MADV_DOFORK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060213154114.GO32041@mellanox.co.il> <20060213210906.GC13603@mellanox.co.il> 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 Content-Length: 665 Lines: 18 On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Almost. I would still prefer madvise_vma to allow MADV_DONTFORK > on a VM_IO vma, even though it must prohibit MADV_DOFORK there. > But if Linus disagrees, of course ignore me. No, I agree. Quite frankly, I'd be willing to allow even the other way around, because I don't see how the VM could screw up, but prohibiting DOFORK is clearly the safer thing to do. Linus - 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/