Re: mincore on anon mappings

[Andi Kleen]

"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>
> Therefore I propose we add a MAP_FORCE which does exactly what GCC wants
> which is:
>
> 1) The passed in 'hint' address is treated as mandatory, if exactly that
>    address cannot be used, we fail.
>
> 2) Existing areas get in the way, and cause failure.

That sounds unintuitive. I would expect MAP_FORCE to do exactly
that (that is is done by default right now is a different story).
But you want to reverse the meaning.

How about calling it MAP_STRICT or just MAP_CHECK ? 

>
> 3) get_unmapped_area() implementations shut off any 'hint' address
>    modification logic they may have.

Good idea definitely.


-Andi

-
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/