From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 04:25:33 -0800 Message-ID: <20171213122533.GA2384@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20171213092550.2774-1-mhocko@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171213092550.2774-1-mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Khalid Aziz , Michael Ellerman , Andrew Morton , Russell King - ARM Linux , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, LKML , linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Florian Weimer , John Hubbard , Abdul Haleem , Joel Stanley , Kees Cook , Michal Hocko List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org 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.