Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
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?
All I'm saying is that we can easily wait a few days until arch
maintainers have had a chance to comment (you didn't think you
were missing anything last time, either).
We can afford to be a little bit careful about changing user APIs.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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
