On 04/03/2014 01:51 PM, Christopher Covington wrote: > 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 Thanks. Reworded. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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
