Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:54:04 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Drop cache has no effect?
In-Reply-To: <20060829183902.be1356b6.akpm@osdl.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608300751330.9263@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608291449060.10486@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
 <20060829110048.20e23e75.akpm@osdl.org> <87k64rxc6g.fsf@duaron.myhome.or.jp>
 <20060829183902.be1356b6.akpm@osdl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1162
Lines: 31

>> 
>> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/