Re: wrong madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) semantic

[Robert Love]

On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 22:03 +0200, JÃrn Engel wrote:

> Plus, common sense agrees with posix.  An implementation of madvice
> that doesn't do anything should be perfectly sane and functionally
> equivalent to any other implementation.  Only differences should be in
> performance.
> 
> Dropping dirty pages is a clear functional difference.

I like the idea (I think someone suggested this early on) of renaming
the current MADV_DONTNEED to MADV_FREE and then adding a correct
MADV_DONTNEED.

And, as I said, the man page needs clarification.

	Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/