From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar 30 21:17:24 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB08106564A
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:17:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dieterbsd@engineer.com)
Received: from mailout-us.gmx.com (mailout-us.gmx.com [74.208.5.67])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85BED8FC14
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:17:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 16147 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2012 21:17:18 -0000
Received: from 67.206.186.20 by rms-us018 with HTTP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:17:15 -0400
From: "Dieter BSD" <dieterbsd@engineer.com>
Message-ID: <20120330211716.155060@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Authenticated: #74169980
X-Flags: 0001
X-Mailer: GMX.com Web Mailer
x-registered: 0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-GMX-UID: i0cEb/Zd3zOlNR3dAHAhG/t+IGRvbwAV
Subject: Re: mlock(2) man page errata
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:17:24 -0000

>> mlock(2) says:
>>
>> > A single process can mlock() the minimum of a system-wide
>> > ``wired pages'' limit and the per-process RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
>> > resource limit.
>>
>> Shouldn't this say maximum rather than minimum?
>
> I don't think so.  The minimum of the two would be the limit that you
> will hit first, and presumably is the point at which you cannot mlock
> any more pages.

Ok, but "can mlock() the minimum of" is easy to misread as
"can mlock() at least".  Perhaps it would be more clear to say
something like

 The amount of memory that a process can mlock() is limited by the
 per-process RLIMIT_MEMLOCK resource limit, and by a system-wide
 ``wired pages'' limit.