On 30/09/18 16:31, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 14:27, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>> :
>> I'm not clear why we should only use one flag. The two flags I specified
>> reflect two independent use cases, one where data stored in an NVM
>> device is accessed read-only and another where it is accessed
>> read-write. Are you suggesting that the read-only case is redundant? I'm
>> not sure I agree. For example, a utility which might want to review the
>> state of persistent data while a service is off-line would really want
>> to pass flag READ_ONLY_PERSISTENT. Of course, it could employ
>> READ_WRITE_PERSISTENT (or equivalently, SYNC) and just not write the
>> data but, mutatis mutandis, that same argument would remove the case for
>> flag READ_ONLY.
>>
> I'm wrong on this point. The map takes a single MapMode, not a set of
> modes as I was assuming, so you are right that it needs two new modes,
> not one. I do think we should re-visit the name though as the native
> flag is MAP_SYNC.
Sure, I'd be happy to change this.
Would READ_ONLY_SYNC and READ_WRITE_SYNC be suitable alternatives? Or do
you have something else in mind?
regards,
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
