Re: Mark setrtable(2) as NOLOCK

2018-02-20 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 19/02/18(Mon) 16:31, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:22:30 +0100 > > From: Martin Pieuchot > > > > Now that suser() is no longer messing with a per-process field, we > > can directly turn setrtable(2) as NOLOCK. > > > > Apart from sanity checks this

Re: Mark setrtable(2) as NOLOCK

2018-02-19 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:22:30 +0100 > From: Martin Pieuchot > > Now that suser() is no longer messing with a per-process field, we > can directly turn setrtable(2) as NOLOCK. > > Apart from sanity checks this syscall writes an int-sized per-process > field. Is a memory