Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If you want to start the IO *now* without waiting on it, call msync(MS_ASYNC)
> If you don't want to start the IO now, that's really easy, do nothing.
> If you want to start the IO now and also wait for it to finish, call msync(MS_SYNC)
I've already explained the problems with the start-io-in-MS_ASYNC approach.
> Presently, the first option is unavailable.
We need to patch the kernel either way. There's no point in going back to
either the known-problematic approach or to something half-assed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
- Re: msync() behaviour broken for MS_ASYNC, revert patch?
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]