Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm/mseal: update madvise() logic

[David Hildenbrand]

> As an aside, why should discard work in this case even without step 4?
> Wouldn't setting "read-only" imply you don't want the memory to change
> out from under you? I guess I'm not clear on the semantics: how do memory
> protection bits map to madvise actions like this?

They generally don't affect MADV_DONTNEED behavior. The only documented 
(man page) reason for EPERM in the man page is related to MADV_HWPOISON.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb