On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:36:20PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 10:07 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:50PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>marked volatile, it should remain volatile until someone who has the
> >>file open marks it as non-volatile. The only time
On 04/08/2013 10:07 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:50PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
marked volatile, it should remain volatile until someone who has the
file open marks it as non-volatile. The only time we clear the
volatility is when the file is closed by all users.
Yes.
On 04/08/2013 10:07 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:50PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
marked volatile, it should remain volatile until someone who has the
file open marks it as non-volatile. The only time we clear the
volatility is when the file is closed by all users.
Yes.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:36:20PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/08/2013 10:07 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:50PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
marked volatile, it should remain volatile until someone who has the
file open marks it as non-volatile. The only time we clear
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:50PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 07:18 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>>Hello John,
> >>>
> >>>As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange
On 04/08/2013 07:18 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >Hello John,
> >
> >As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
> >pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
> >about semantic of vrange and want
On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
about semantic of vrange and want to make it very clear and easy.
So I suggest below semantic(Of course, it's
On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
about semantic of vrange and want to make it very clear and easy.
So I suggest below semantic(Of course, it's
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
about semantic of vrange and want to make it
On 04/08/2013 07:18 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:27:50PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/08/2013 07:18 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/07/2013 05:46 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
about semantic of vrange and want to make it very clear and easy.
So I suggest below semantic(Of course, it's not rock solid).
Hello John,
As you know, userland people wanted to handle vrange with mmaped
pointer rather than fd-based and see the SIGBUS so I thought more
about semantic of vrange and want to make it very clear and easy.
So I suggest below semantic(Of course, it's not rock solid).
Hi John,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 10:37:52AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 11:55 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:52:19PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>Next we introduce a parallel fvrange() syscall for creating
> >>volatile ranges directly against files.
> >Okay.
Hi John,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 10:37:52AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 04/03/2013 11:55 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:52:19PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
Next we introduce a parallel fvrange() syscall for creating
volatile ranges directly against files.
Okay. It seems you
On 04/03/2013 11:55 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:52:19PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
Next we introduce a parallel fvrange() syscall for creating
volatile ranges directly against files.
Okay. It seems you want to replace ashmem interface with fvrange.
I dobut we have to eat a
Hey John,
First of all, I should confess I just glanced your code and poped
several questions. If I miss something, please slap me.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:52:19PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> This patchset is against Minchan's vrange work here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/12/105
>
>
Hey John,
First of all, I should confess I just glanced your code and poped
several questions. If I miss something, please slap me.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:52:19PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
This patchset is against Minchan's vrange work here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/12/105
On 04/03/2013 11:55 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:52:19PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
Next we introduce a parallel fvrange() syscall for creating
volatile ranges directly against files.
Okay. It seems you want to replace ashmem interface with fvrange.
I dobut we have to eat a
This patchset is against Minchan's vrange work here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/12/105
Extending it to support volatile ranges on files. In effect
providing the same functionality of my earlier file based
volatile range patches on-top of Minchan's anonymous volatile
range work.
This patchset is against Minchan's vrange work here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/12/105
Extending it to support volatile ranges on files. In effect
providing the same functionality of my earlier file based
volatile range patches on-top of Minchan's anonymous volatile
range work.
22 matches
Mail list logo
