Re: why should physmem not know about which frames are extra?

[Sam Mason]

Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>I have considered this case before writing my mail, and thought that
>you theoretically could mark the particular frame as guaranteed (from
>extra) when mapping it write-only (ie, you have to contact physmem
>anyway).

Just thinking aloud here. . .  But wouldn't this be a nightmare for a
program using garbage collection?  Writing a copying collector that
would keep physmem in sync with its progress wouldn't be my idea
of fun!  If the progress could be maintained "lazily" by physmem
asking for the information only when it's needed would be a lot
nicer - in my opinion anyway!

Or am I missing something?

Cheers,
  Sam