Re: Drop cache has no effect?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> writes:

>>> 
>>> That's dirty area, vfat has one read-only bit only. Yes, I also think
>>> this is strange behaviour. But, I worry app is depending on the
>>> current behaviour, because this is pretty old behaviour.
>>> 
>>> Umm.., do someone have any strong reason? I'll make patch at this
>>> weekend, and please test it in -mm tree for a bit long time...?
>>
>>It is pretty weird that permission bits on vfat can magically change in
>>response to memory pressure.
>
> Well, the same happened for procfs in the past (when one was able to chmod it,
> in current kernels it is forbidden.)

IIRC, at least 2.4 doesn't allow it, it's rather new.

> It seems the best thing ATM, no?

I also think it's good. But it wouldn't be good reason for breaking app...
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
-
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/

[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]
  Powered by Linux