From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F006B0005 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id o33-v6so3910981plb.16 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s66si2294782pgb.59.2018.04.12.07.22.16 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:22:14 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmap.2: Add description of MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE and MAP_SYNC Message-ID: <20180412142214.fcxw3g2jxv6bvn7d@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20171101153648.30166-1-jack@suse.cz> <20171101153648.30166-20-jack@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Jan Kara , Dan Williams , Ross Zwisler , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Linux-MM , Linux API , Ext4 Developers List , xfs , "Darrick J . Wong" Hello Michael! On Thu 12-04-18 15:00:49, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hello Jan, > > I have applied your patch, and tweaked the text a little, and pushed > the result to the git repo. Thanks! > > +.B MAP_SHARED > > +type will silently ignore this flag. > > +This flag is supported only for files supporting DAX (direct mapping of persistent > > +memory). For other files, creating mapping with this flag results in > > +.B EOPNOTSUPP > > +error. Shared file mappings with this flag provide the guarantee that while > > +some memory is writeably mapped in the address space of the process, it will > > +be visible in the same file at the same offset even after the system crashes or > > +is rebooted. This allows users of such mappings to make data modifications > > +persistent in a more efficient way using appropriate CPU instructions. > > It feels like there's a word missing/unclear wording in the previous > line, before "using". Without that word, the sentence feels a bit > ambiguous. > > Should it be: > > persistent in a more efficient way *through the use of* appropriate > CPU instructions. > > or: > > persistent in a more efficient way *than using* appropriate CPU instructions. > > ? > > Is suspect the first is correct, but need to check. Yes, the first is correct. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR