On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 10:01 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > > 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? I trust your review, I have no plans to do another pass. Thank you both for your efforts! -- Tanu
