On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:57:32AM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > On 12 February 2010 ?. 10:42:09 Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:24:52PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > > > The man page is likely missing the word "no", as that makes a lot > > > more sense than the current wording meaning positive action. > > > > well, can you fix that then, please? > > jmc > > Maybe it's better to say that this is not treated as error too? See the > patch at the end of this letter. >
i don;t know this stuff. but why would you expect an error in this case? if we are saying that if len is 0, then this happens, why do we need to say it doesn;t generate an error? so, how important is it? > > Index: mprotect.2 > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/sys/mprotect.2,v > retrieving revision 1.14 > diff -u -p -r1.14 mprotect.2 > --- mprotect.2 31 May 2007 19:19:33 -0000 1.14 > +++ mprotect.2 12 Feb 2010 07:55:38 -0000 > @@ -53,10 +53,11 @@ through > .Fa len > \- 1 > (inclusive). > -If > -.Fa len > -is 0, then action will be taken on the page that contains > -.Fa addr . > +It is not an error to specify 0 as > +.Fa len , > +but no action will be taken on the page that contains > +.Fa addr > +then . > .Pp > Not all implementations will guarantee protection on a page basis; > the granularity of protection changes may be as large as an entire region. this wording is not great. but i won;t suggest anything else until you or someone answers the point above. jmc
