Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-17 Thread Minchan Kim
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.

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-17 Thread Minchan Kim
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. +/*

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-16 Thread John Stultz
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.

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-16 Thread John Stultz
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.

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-03 Thread Minchan Kim
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

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-03 Thread Taras Glek
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.

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-03 Thread Taras Glek
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.

Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-03 Thread Minchan Kim
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

[RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-02 Thread Minchan Kim
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

[RFC 1/8] Introduce new system call mvolatile

2013-01-02 Thread Minchan Kim
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