Re: open(O_DIRECT) on a tmpfs?

Hugh Dickins wrote:

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.

I see no reason to restrict it as is currently done.

Policy belongs in userspace, not in the kernel,
so long as the code impact is miniscule.

Cheers
-
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/

---

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [i2c] Why to I2c drivers not autoload like other PCI devices?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] user ns: prepare copy_tree, copy_mnt, and their callers to handle errs
• 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]