[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180220164406.3ec34509376f16841dc66e34@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:44:06 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, criu@...nvz.org, gdb@...rceware.org,
devel@...ts.open-mpi.org, rr-dev@...illa.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] vm: add a syscall to map a process memory into a
pipe
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:30:49 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patches introduces new process_vmsplice system call that combines
> functionality of process_vm_read and vmsplice.
All seems fairly strightforward. The big question is: do we know that
people will actually use this, and get sufficient value from it to
justify its addition?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists