Re: Drop cache has no effect?

[Jan Engelhardt]

>> 
>> 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.)

>But no, I'm not really advocating any changes in this area - I don't recall
>any complaints (surprised) and the chances are that if we changed it
>(ie: not permit the inode to accept changes which cannot be stored on disk)
>then someone's app would break.
>
>otoh, it is pretty bad behaviour...

It seems the best thing ATM, no?


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/