[<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