From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-87539-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 75492 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2017 10:25:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 75479 invoked by uid 89); 27 Nov 2017 10:25:42 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement the mlock2 function
To: Rical Jasan <ricaljasan@pacific.net>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
References: <20171124165936.9CEC94071C775@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <d6356826-8fe4-2a11-dbc0-a0c81fb86c50@pacific.net>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3b94acec-7356-a852-4a16-038be02a4bb3@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:25:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d6356826-8fe4-2a11-dbc0-a0c81fb86c50@pacific.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00914.txt.bz2

On 11/28/2017 10:25 AM, Rical Jasan wrote:

>> +Like @code{mlock}, @code{mlock2} returns zero on success and @code{-1}
> 
> I thought you were in the @math camp for return values.  :P

mlock uses @code, so it was a difficult decision.  8-/

>>   @deftypefun int munlock (const void *@var{addr}, size_t @var{len})
>>   @standards{POSIX.1b, sys/mman.h}
>>   @safety{@prelim{}@mtsafe{}@assafe{}@acsafe{}}
> 
> The rest of the patch looked OK to me, but I'm not able to give an
> authoritative ACK on it.  Seemed straightforward though.

I'm waiting for more feedback on the ENOSYS masking behavior.

Thanks,
Florian