[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060829124945.656dbaa1.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:49:45 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Drop cache has no effect?
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:21:25 +0200 (MEST)
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 37816633 2006-07-28 19:25
> >> inkscape-0.44-2.guru.suse101.i686.rpm
> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 jengelh users 297243 2006-08-15 01:13
> >> vmware-any-any-update104.tar.gz
> >>
> >> Remains 644.
> >
> >That would be a vfat problem - the changed permission bits weren't written
> >back to disk, so when you re-read them from disk (or, more likely, from
> >blockdev pagecache) they came back with the original values.
>
> Yes, that's _intended_.
>
> Fact:
> If you chmod 644 some files on vfat, then unmount and mount it again, they show
> up as 755 again. That is ok.
>
> Observation:
> Dropping the cache does not imply the 644->755 change observed on unmount.
>
> Conclusion:
> Caches not dropped.
Not all caches dropped. It'd be silly to try that - see the implementation.
Running the same command a few more times might wring a couple more dentries
and inodes out of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists