On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> According to the SuSv3 spec, "if the application requests only PROT_WRITE,
> the implementation may also allow read access." Also as mentioned, some
> archtectures, such as alpha, shown above already take the approach that i am
> suggesting.
>
> The counter-argument to this raised by Arjan, is that the kernel is enforcing
> the write only mapping the best it can given the h/w limitations. This is
> true, however Alan Cox, and myself would argue that the inconsitency in
> behavior, that is applications can sometimes work/sometimes fails is highly
> undesireable. If you read through the thread, i think people, came to an
> agreement on the last patch i posted, as nobody has objected to it...
The same can be said about not initializing local variables, using delete vs.
delete [], ...: sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. It's still an
application bug to rely on `may' behavior.
So I tend to agree with Arjan.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
