On 12/2/14 09:55, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 17:01 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> At present, kernel supports madvise(MADV_FREE), so can benefit to all >>>>> related architectures (can grep MADV_WILLNEED or MADV_REMOVE in "arch/" >>>>> to know about all related architectures). >>>> >>>> A similar patch has been posted a while ago: >>>> >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg81538.html >>> >>> Would it be possible to use the same number everywhere? >> >> Yes please. It's ridiculous that we still need patches like this. >> >> I proposed unifying all this two years ago, but didn't follow up. >> >> From glibc's perspective it would be simpler if we started using the >> same number everywhere. >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-api/msg02064.html > > Please co-ordinate with Andrew then because he's intent on merging this > patch: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=141747572930808 > For me, we can let MADV_FREE to 8 based on the Andrew's mm tree. Since it is about uapi, we need try our best to let it perfect. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
