I'll change the "allowing" to "allow" in the subject so we don't have a gerund phrase.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Dave Jiang <dave.ji...@intel.com> wrote: > MAP_SYNC is basically a nop for device-dax. However allowing the MAP_SYNC Not "bascially", it *is* a nop for device-dax. I'll change this second sentence to start "Allow MAP_SYNC to succeed on device-dax to eliminate special casing between device-dax and fs-dax as to when the flag can be specified." > flag to succeed on device-dax would make it consistent with fs-dax and > reduces confusion for the application writer. This allows the application to > assume that it does not need to call fsync() after writes to device-dax > mappings. I'll change this last sentence to say "Device-dax users already implicitly assume that they do not need to call fsync(), enable them to explicitly check for this capability". _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
