On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:45:52AM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote: > > And now I am thinking if we use access bit, we could implment MADV_FREE_UNDO > > easily when we need it. Maybe, that's what you want. Right? > > Yes, but why the access bit instead of the dirty bit for that? It could > always be made more strict (i.e. access bit) in the future, while going > the other way won't be possible. So I think the dirty bit is really the > more conservative choice since if it turns out to be a mistake it can be > fixed without a backwards incompatible change. Absolutely true. That's why I insist on dirty bit until now although I didn't tell the reason. But I thought you wanted to change for using access bit for the future, too. It seems MADV_FREE start to bloat over and over again before knowing real problems and usecases. It's almost same situation with volatile ranges so I really want to stop at proper point which maintainer should decide, I hope. Without it, we will make the feature a lot heavy by just brain storming and then causes lots of churn in MM code without real bebenfit It would be very painful for us. -- 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
