Re: pulseaudio build
On 6/13/2010 15:52, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Antonio Huete Jimenez
> <ahuete.devel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As it is not really implemented I think ENOSYS is more appropiate. But
>> definitely the best thing at all is to implemented it :P
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Antonio Huete
>>
>> 2010/6/13 Matthew Dillon<dillon@apollo.backplane.com>:
>>> :>> ./t_ml
>>> :> mlockall: Function not implemented
>>> :
>>> :Is it worth MFC'ing? I have a vague feeling I had talked to someone about
>>> :this before, but I can't find evidence of it.
>>>
>>> What direction are we talking about? Making it return ENOSYS or
>>> making it return success but otherwise be a NOP ?
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>> Matthew Dillon
>>> <dillon@backplane.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Antonio Huete
>>
>>
>
> Returning ENOSYS is correct as per the specification.
>
> The mlockall() and munlockall() functions will fail if:
>
> [ENOSYS]
> The implementation does not support this memory locking interface.
>
> See: http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/mlockall.html
Yeah, well, that's SUSv2...
However, see the change history here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/mlockall.html
Sascha
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 8 之 10 篇)：