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.
