On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:34:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Would you be willing to look at doing that kind of purely syntactic, > non-semantic cleanup first?
Sure, more than happy to do that! I'll work on a patch for this. > I think that if we end up having the FOLL_FORCE semantics, we're > actually better off having an explicit FOLL_FORCE flag, and *not* do > some kind of implicit "under these magical circumstances we'll force > it anyway". The implicit thing is what we used to do long long ago, we > definitely don't want to. That's a good point, it would definitely be considerably more 'magical', and expanding the conditions to include uprobes etc. would only add to that. I wondered about an alternative parameter/flag but it felt like it was more-or-less FOLL_FORCE in a different form, at which point it may as well remain FOLL_FORCE :)
