"Kenneth C. Arnold" wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 04:49:33PM -0400, Jacques Richer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Not sure I like that, TBH. We shouldn't go filling up the user's disk with
> > > caches unless we really need to - I'd much rather use the free swap space
> > > for this.
> > >
> >
> > Your approach seems better to me for floppies, I agree. Unfortunately, if you extend
> > this to CDROM (650mb...) you can easily blow up the machine by running out of VM.
> > Many of the machines I run here do not have more than 500mb or so of swap space, and
> > use very little of that...
>
> Yes, but:
>
> 1. CDs aren't writable, and
> 2. even for the writable ones (which require special s/w anyway), there is
> an eject lock.
>
> So why bother caching this? I do see your point, though -- the ~120 MB floppy
> (forget the name) _would_ have problems. But drives with eject lock, e.g., ZIP,
> have no problems without doing special kernel stuff.
>
> > I was thinking of hooks into the vfs layer to work with a user-space deamon. This
> > way, we can put the necessary code into userland and if it's done carefully a crash
> > of the userland daemod would be recoverable. This is just conceptual, as I am not
> > terribly familiar with the vfs code.
>
> Wasn't there / isn't there a userfs? (??)
>
> Kenneth
I did not see a userfs in the 2.2.16 tree I have here. If there is one in another version
of the kernel - just let me know and I'll see how bad it'll be to cruft at least a basic
test case together.
--
Jacques
--
The packet goes out the card, into the copper,
out the router, onto the fiber, across the world,
through the copper......
NOTHING BUT NET!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:32 EST