On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 05:48:37PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 08:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
> >If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
>
> So some nits below from my initial playing around with this patchset.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 05:48:37PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
On 01/02/2013 08:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
So some nits below from my initial playing around with this patchset.
+/*
On 01/02/2013 08:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
So some nits below from my initial playing around with this patchset.
+/*
+ * Return -EINVAL if range doesn't include a right vma at all.
On 01/02/2013 08:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
So some nits below from my initial playing around with this patchset.
+/*
+ * Return -EINVAL if range doesn't include a right vma at all.
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:35:24AM -0800, Taras Glek wrote:
> On 1/2/2013 8:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
> >If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
> >
> >The reason why I introduced new system call instead of madvise is
On 1/2/2013 8:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
The reason why I introduced new system call instead of madvise is
m[no]volatile vma handling is totally different with madvise's vma
handling.
On 1/2/2013 8:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
The reason why I introduced new system call instead of madvise is
m[no]volatile vma handling is totally different with madvise's vma
handling.
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:35:24AM -0800, Taras Glek wrote:
On 1/2/2013 8:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
The reason why I introduced new system call instead of madvise is
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
The reason why I introduced new system call instead of madvise is
m[no]volatile vma handling is totally different with madvise's vma
handling.
1) The m[no]volatile should be successful
This patch adds new system call m[no]volatile.
If someone asks is_volatile system call, it could be added, too.
The reason why I introduced new system call instead of madvise is
m[no]volatile vma handling is totally different with madvise's vma
handling.
1) The m[no]volatile should be successful
10 matches
Mail list logo