On 2016-03-12 23:35, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > Hello! > > The simplified memfd patch series ;-) Hi! Good work! I've read through the patch series and think they look pretty much okay, and your amount of testing is exemplary. Surely there are nitpicks here and there but at this point I think maybe we're better off merging the patch series as it is to get wider testing from developers using it in practice. My only concern or thought is about the global mempool. By turning that into a memfd by default, we would potentially slow down clients which support posix shm but not memfd. I'm not sure if this is a problem in practice though - even an old closed-source client would (hopefully?) bind to a new libpulse library and thus gain memfd support that way, and I hope nobody links libpulse statically. Thoughts? Arun, Tanu, should I go ahead and commit this or do you want to review it as well? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
