Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751838AbaL3Uvd (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2014 15:51:33 -0500 Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]:56739 "EHLO mail-qa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751425AbaL3Uvb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2014 15:51:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1417567367-9298-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> References: <1417567367-9298-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:51:11 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve documentation of FADV_DONTNEED behaviour To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > Partial page discard requests are ignored and the documentation on why this > is correct behaviour sucks. A readahead patch looked like a "regression" to > a random IO storage benchmark because posix_fadvise() was used incorrectly > to force IO requests to go to disk. In reality, the benchmark sucked but > it was non-obvious why. Patch 1 updates the kernel comment in case someone > "fixes" either readahead or fadvise for inappropriate reasons. Patch 2 > updates the relevant man page on the rough off chance that application > developers do not read kernel source comments. It feels like that last sentence should have made LWN quote of the week :-/. -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/