[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801231438530.2803@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
salikhmetov@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, jakob@...hought.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@...edu,
riel@...hat.com, ksm@...dk, staubach@...hat.com,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
protasnb@...il.com, r.e.wolff@...wizard.nl,
hidave.darkstar@...il.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8 3/4] Enable the MS_ASYNC functionality in
sys_msync()
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> Something I dislike about it, though, is that it leaves the RAM-backed
> filesystems (ramfs, tmpfs, whatever) behaving visibly differently from
> the others.
I hear you.
But I'm not seeing many alternatives, unless we start taking write faults
on them unnecessarily. Do we care? Probably not really.
So we certainly *could* make ramfs/tmpfs claim they do dirty accounting,
but just having a no-op writeback. Without that, they'd need something
really special in the file time updates.
Personally, I don't really see anybody really caring one way or the other,
but who knows..
Linus
--
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