lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: mincore on anon mappings
From
Date
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:

>
> Therefore I propose we add a MAP_FORCE which does exactly what GCC wants
> which is:
>
> 1) The passed in 'hint' address is treated as mandatory, if exactly that
> address cannot be used, we fail.
>
> 2) Existing areas get in the way, and cause failure.

That sounds unintuitive. I would expect MAP_FORCE to do exactly
that (that is is done by default right now is a different story).
But you want to reverse the meaning.

How about calling it MAP_STRICT or just MAP_CHECK ?

>
> 3) get_unmapped_area() implementations shut off any 'hint' address
> modification logic they may have.

Good idea definitely.


-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.025 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site