Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 09:17:03 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: munmap.2 inconsistency ? Message-ID: <20040206221703.GB54490@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20040206120323.A68951@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20040206120323.A68951@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:03:23PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > hi, > browsing through the munmap() page, it says > Munmap() will fail if: > > [EINVAL] The addr parameter was not page aligned, the len > ... > > now, i have verified that munmap works fine with any address returned > by mmap, even if not aligned, at least on a recent -STABLE. > > As i assume that passing munmap() the same address returned by mmap() > is common behaviour, should we rephrase the manpage ? This could have slipped in from POSIX, which requires page-aligned addresses and lengths to mmap() & friends. I believe SVR4 also requires this. But yes, the manual pages should be corrected. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040206221703.GB54490>