[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171213123437.GF25185@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:34:37 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
On Wed 13-12-17 04:25:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am afraid we can bikeshed this to death and there will still be
> > somebody finding yet another better name. Therefore I've decided to
> > stick with my original MAP_FIXED_SAFE. Why? Well, because it keeps the
> > MAP_FIXED prefix which should be recognized by developers and _SAFE
> > suffix should also be clear that all dangerous side effects of the old
> > MAP_FIXED are gone.
>
> I liked basically every other name suggested more than MAP_FIXED_SAFE.
> "Safe against what?" was an important question.
>
> MAP_AT_ADDR was the best suggestion I saw that wasn't one of mine. Of
> my suggestions, I liked MAP_STATIC the best.
The question is whether you care enough to pursue this further yourself.
Because as I've said I do not want to spend another round discussing the
name. The flag is documented and I believe that the name has some merit.
Disagreeing on naming is the easiest pitfall to block otherwise useful
functionality from being merged. And I am pretty sure there will be
always somebody objecting...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists