From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: msync: require either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:45:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20140402104517.GA20656@rei> References: <533B04A9.6090405@bbn.com> <533B1439.3010403@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <533B1439.3010403-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Richard Hansen , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Greg Troxel List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > and there's no good > > reason to believe that this behavior would have persisted > > indefinitely. > > > > The msync(2) man page (as currently written in man-pages.git) is > > silent on the behavior if both flags are unset, so this change should > > not break an application written by somone who carefully reads the > > Linux man pages or the POSIX spec. > > Sadly, people do not always carefully read man pages, so there > remains the chance that a change like this will break applications. > Aside from standards conformance, what do you see as the benefit > of the change? I've looked around Linux Test Project and this change will break a few testcases, but nothing that couldn't be easily fixed. The rest of the world may be more problematic though. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBE16B0092 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 06:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id r7so16774bkg.40 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 03:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pv3si754614bkb.149.2014.04.02.03.45.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Apr 2014 03:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:45:17 +0200 From: chrubis@suse.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: msync: require either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC Message-ID: <20140402104517.GA20656@rei> References: <533B04A9.6090405@bbn.com> <533B1439.3010403@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <533B1439.3010403@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Richard Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Greg Troxel Hi! > > and there's no good > > reason to believe that this behavior would have persisted > > indefinitely. > > > > The msync(2) man page (as currently written in man-pages.git) is > > silent on the behavior if both flags are unset, so this change should > > not break an application written by somone who carefully reads the > > Linux man pages or the POSIX spec. > > Sadly, people do not always carefully read man pages, so there > remains the chance that a change like this will break applications. > Aside from standards conformance, what do you see as the benefit > of the change? I've looked around Linux Test Project and this change will break a few testcases, but nothing that couldn't be easily fixed. The rest of the world may be more problematic though. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758363AbaDBKpx (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 06:45:53 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34636 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758150AbaDBKpv (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 06:45:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:45:17 +0200 From: chrubis@suse.cz To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Richard Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Greg Troxel Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: msync: require either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC Message-ID: <20140402104517.GA20656@rei> References: <533B04A9.6090405@bbn.com> <533B1439.3010403@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <533B1439.3010403@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > and there's no good > > reason to believe that this behavior would have persisted > > indefinitely. > > > > The msync(2) man page (as currently written in man-pages.git) is > > silent on the behavior if both flags are unset, so this change should > > not break an application written by somone who carefully reads the > > Linux man pages or the POSIX spec. > > Sadly, people do not always carefully read man pages, so there > remains the chance that a change like this will break applications. > Aside from standards conformance, what do you see as the benefit > of the change? I've looked around Linux Test Project and this change will break a few testcases, but nothing that couldn't be easily fixed. The rest of the world may be more problematic though. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz