Re: Drop cache has no effect?

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>> 
>>> 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.)

IIRC, at least 2.4 doesn't allow it, it's rather new.

> It seems the best thing ATM, no?

I also think it's good. But it wouldn't be good reason for breaking app...
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
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/