On Fri 11-08-17 16:11:44, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 08/11/2017 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I am sorry to look too insisting here (I have still hard time to reconcile > > myself with the madvise (ab)use) but if we in fact want minherit like > > interface why don't we simply add minherit and make the code which wants > > to use that interface easier to port? Is the only reason that hooking > > into madvise is less code? If yes is that a sufficient reason to justify > > the (ab)use of madvise? If there is a general consensus on that part I > > will shut up and won't object anymore. Arguably MADV_DONTFORK would fit > > into minherit API better as well. > > It does, OpenBSD calls it MAP_INHERIT_NONE. > > Could you implement MAP_INHERIT_COPY and MAP_INHERIT_SHARE as well? Or > is changing from MAP_SHARED to MAP_PRIVATE and back impossible? I haven't explored those two very much. Their semantic seems rather awkward, especially map_inherit_share one. I guess MAP_INHERIT_COPY would be doable. Do we have to support all modes or a missing support would disqualify the syscall completely? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
