Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:09:25 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Best <alexbestms@math.uni-muenster.de> To: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Alexander Best <alexbestms@math.uni-muenster.de> Subject: Re: mmap(2) with MAP_ANON honouring offset although it shouldn't Message-ID: <permail-20091104190925f0889e84000041f8-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> In-Reply-To: <4AF1CB11.2090503@cs.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alan Cox schrieb am 2009-11-04: > Ed Schouten wrote: > >* Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> wrote: > For what it's worth, I believe that Solaris does the exact opposite. > >>They provide MAP_ANONYMOUS for compatibility. It seems like a good > >>idea for us to do the same. > >Something like this? > >Index: mman.h > >=================================================================== > >--- mman.h (revision 198919) > >+++ mman.h (working copy) > >@@ -82,6 +82,9 @@ > > */ > >#define MAP_FILE 0x0000 /* map from file (default) */ > >#define MAP_ANON 0x1000 /* allocated from memory, > >swap space */ > >+#ifndef _KERNEL > >+#define MAP_ANONYMOUS MAP_ANON /* For compatibility. */ > >+#endif /* !_KERNEL */ > > /* > > * Extended flags > Yes. If no one objects in the next day or so, then please commit > this change. > Alan should this compatibility addition be documented in the mmap(2) manual? any thoughts on the previous change request so mmap fails with MAP_ANON and pos=0? alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?permail-20091104190925f0889e84000041f8-a_best01>