Quoting r. Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] madvise MADV_DONTFORK/MADV_DOFORK] > > Forwarding to linux-arch. Please pipe up on lkml, or send patches > to fix your arch (either way, before 2.6.16!!) if you disagree.
I plan to move them to 9, 10 as Roland suggested. > To me it would be more logical if the numbering was made densely > packed on all architectures even if that means MADV_DONTFORK / > DOFORK aren't consistently numbered throughout (why should they > get special treatment?). Making the values identical on all architectures makes it possible to write a portable application even before distributions update their headers. Thats important to me. I assume that the values are different on different architectures because of legacy/backward compatibility concerns, but I dont see compelling reasons to mess up new values. Why is it important to keep the MADV_ numbers densely packed? We have 32 bit for these, dont we? What am I missing? -- Michael S. Tsirkin Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
