RFR: 8207851 JEP Draft: Support ByteBuffer mapped over non-volatile memory
adinn at redhat.com
Wed Oct 3 09:14:12 UTC 2018
On 30/09/18 16:31, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 14:27, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>> I'm not clear why we should only use one flag. The two flags I specified
>> reflect two independent use cases, one where data stored in an NVM
>> device is accessed read-only and another where it is accessed
>> read-write. Are you suggesting that the read-only case is redundant? I'm
>> not sure I agree. For example, a utility which might want to review the
>> state of persistent data while a service is off-line would really want
>> to pass flag READ_ONLY_PERSISTENT. Of course, it could employ
>> READ_WRITE_PERSISTENT (or equivalently, SYNC) and just not write the
>> data but, mutatis mutandis, that same argument would remove the case for
>> flag READ_ONLY.
> I'm wrong on this point. The map takes a single MapMode, not a set of
> modes as I was assuming, so you are right that it needs two new modes,
> not one. I do think we should re-visit the name though as the native
> flag is MAP_SYNC.
Sure, I'd be happy to change this.
Would READ_ONLY_SYNC and READ_WRITE_SYNC be suitable alternatives? Or do
you have something else in mind?
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
More information about the core-libs-dev