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