From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8 3/4] Enable the MS_ASYNC functionality in sys_msync() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <12010440803930-git-send-email-salikhmetov@gmail.com> <1201044083504-git-send-email-salikhmetov@gmail.com> <1201110066.6341.65.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Miklos Szeredi , a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, salikhmetov@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, jakob@unthought.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, riel@redhat.com, ksm@42.dk, staubach@redhat.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, protasnb@gmail.com, r.e.wolff@bitwizard.nl, hidave.darkstar@gmail.com, hch@infradead.org List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org