[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533E571C.4080902@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:54:20 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com, 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 01:51 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
> 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
Thanks. Reworded.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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