> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>
>> Hello Nadia,
>>
>> Regarding your:
>>
>> [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem
>>
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/637849/
>> which I see has made its way in 2.6.26-rc
>>
>> Your patch has the following change:
>>
>> -#define MSGPOOL (MSGMNI*MSGMNB/1024) /* size in kilobytes of message
>> pool */
>> +#define MSGPOOL (MSGMNI * MSGMNB) /* size in bytes of message pool */
>>
>> Since this constitutes a kernel-userland interface change, so please
>> do CC me, so that I can change the man pages if needed.
>
> Oops, sorry for not doing it: I misunderstood the "unused"
>
>>
>> The man page
>> (
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/msgctl.2.html)
>> does indeed say that msgpool is "unused". But that meant "unused by
>> the kernel" (sorry -- I probably should have worded that text better).
>> And, as you spotted, the page also wrongly said the value is in
>> bytes.
>>
>> However, making this change affects the ABI. A userspace application
>> that was previously using msgctl(IPC_INFO) to retrieve the msgpool
>> field will be affected by the factor-of-1024 change. I strongly
>> suspect that there no such applications, or certainly none that care
>> (since this value is unused by the kernel). But was there a reason
>> for making this change, aside from the fact that the code and the man
>> page didn't agree?
>>
>
> No, that was the only reason.
> Should I repost a patch to set it back as it used to be?
