Re: More questions...

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 03:11:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>>IWBNI it could be added, assuming it can be done without breaking existing
>>applications (perhaps a flag could be snuck in somewhere.)  I can write
>>the code so that if the information is present, it uses it; otherwise the
>>worst that can happen is having to do the two-step NONE -> READ ->
>>READ|WRITE transition, as it currently is.
>>
>
> At least on linux si_errno on signals should be always 0. I doubt anything
> depends on that. I don't know if that is true on other operating systems
> however. Single Unix has nothing to say about it as far as I can see.
>
> You don't need a flag. Just use it when it is != 0.
>


That's a flag as far as I'm concerned... I can do an #ifdef __linux__ and
test the value of this field.

	-hpa




--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/