[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533D4B42.4040600@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 07:51:30 -0400
From: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
To: mtk.manpages@...il.com
CC: Richard Hansen <rhansen@....com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Troxel <gdt@...bbn.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: msync: require either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC
On 04/03/2014 04:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing
> behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've
> drafted the following text for the msync(2) man page:
>
> NOTES
> According to POSIX, exactly one of MS_SYNC and MS_ASYNC must be
> specified in flags. However, Linux permits a call to msync()
> that specifies neither of these flags, with semantics that are
> (currently) equivalent to specifying MS_ASYNC. (Since Linux
> 2.6.19, MS_ASYNC is in fact a no-op, since the kernel properly
> tracks dirty pages and flushes them to storage as necessary.)
> Notwithstanding the Linux behavior, portable, future-proof appliā
> cations should ensure that they specify exactly one of MS_SYNC
> and MS_ASYNC in flags.
Nit: MS_SYNC or MS_ASYNC
Christopher
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by the Linux Foundation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists