On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:16:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:12:25 -0700 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 06/01/2014 10:24 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > -#define PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY 0
> > > -#define PAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK 1
> > > -#define PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE 2
> > > +enum {
> > > + PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY,
> > > + PAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK,
> > > + PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE,
> > > + __NR_PAGECACHE_TAGS,
> > > +};
> >
> > Doesn't this end up exposing kernel-internal values out to a userspace
> > interface? Wouldn't that lock these values in to the ABI?
>
> Yes, we should be careful here. We should not do anything which
> constrains future kernel code or which causes any form of
> compatibility/migration issues.
OK.
> I wonder if we can do something smart with the interface. For example
> when userspace calls sys_fincore() it must explicitly ask for
> PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY and if some future kernel doesn't implement
> PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY, it can return -EINVAL.
>
> Or maybe it can succeed, but tells userspace "you didn't get
> PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY".
>
> <thinking out loud>
>
> So userspace sends a mask of bits which select what fields it wants.
> The kernel returns a mask of bits which tell userspace what it actually
> received.
>
> Or something like that - you get the idea ;)
Thanks, I'll try this with another flag parameter for this purpose.
Naoya Horiguchi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>