On 04/03/2014 04:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing > behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've > drafted the following text for the msync(2) man page: > > NOTES > According to POSIX, exactly one of MS_SYNC and MS_ASYNC must be > specified in flags. However, Linux permits a call to msync() > that specifies neither of these flags, with semantics that are > (currently) equivalent to specifying MS_ASYNC. (Since Linux > 2.6.19, MS_ASYNC is in fact a no-op, since the kernel properly > tracks dirty pages and flushes them to storage as necessary.) > Notwithstanding the Linux behavior, portable, future-proof appli‐ > cations should ensure that they specify exactly one of MS_SYNC > and MS_ASYNC in flags. Nit: MS_SYNC or MS_ASYNC Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
