[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191101110901.GB690103@chrisdown.name>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:09:01 +0000
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sysctl: make drop_caches write-only
Hm, not sure why my client didn't show this reply.
Andrew Morton writes:
>Risk: some (odd) userspace code will break. Fixable by manually chmodding
>it back again.
The only scenario I can construct in my head is that someone has built
something to watch drop_caches for modification, but we already have the kmsg
output for that.
>Reward: very little.
>
>Is the reward worth the risk?
There is evidence that this has already caused confusion[0] for many, judging
by the number of views and votes. I think the reward is higher than stated
here, since it makes the intent and lack of persistent API in the API clearer,
and less likely to cause confusion in future.
0: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/17936/10762
Powered by blists - more mailing lists