On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:46:08AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 08:19 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > If the use case is fairly specific, then perhaps it makes sense to
> > make MADV_WIPEONFORK not applicable (EINVAL) for mappings where the
> > result is 'questionable'.
> That would be a question for Florian and Colm.
> If they are OK with MADV_WIPEONFORK only working on
> anonymous VMAs (no file mapping), that certainly could
> be implemented.
> On the other hand, I am not sure that introducing cases
> where MADV_WIPEONFORK does not implement wipe-on-fork
> semantics would reduce user confusion...
It'll simply do exactly what it does today, so it won't introduce any
new fallback code.