linux-kernel - Re: [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705181403370.13256@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2007 14:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, dgc@....com, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 08/10] shmem: inode defragmentation support

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> Do we need *this*? (compare procfs)
> 
> I believe that shmfs's inodes remain "more" in memory than those of
> procfs. That is, procfs ones can find their way out (we can regenerate
> it), while shmfs/tmpfs/ramfs/etc. should not do that (we'd lose the
> file).

Ahh... Okay so shmem inodes are not defraggable.

-
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/