RE: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Hua Zhong wrote:
> 
> So I'd argue that it makes more sense to support O_DIRECT
> on tmpfs as the memory IS the backing store.

A few more voices in favour and I'll be persuaded.  Perhaps I'm
out of date: when O_DIRECT came in, just a few filesystems supported
it, and it was perfectly normal for open O_DIRECT to be failed; but
I wouldn't want tmpfs to stand out now as a lone obstacle.

Christoph, what's your take on this?

Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
    • From: Helge Hafting <[email protected]>
  • RE: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
    • From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>
  • Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
    • From: "Hua Zhong" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems
• Next by Date: Re: [UPDATED PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values
• Previous by thread: RE: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
• Next by thread: Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]