On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 10:25 +0200, Thomas Knauth wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedeki...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Plus some explanations WRT why proc-based interface and what would be > > the alternatives, what if tomorrow we want to extend the functionality > > and drop caches only for certain file range, is this only for regular > > files or also for directories, why posix_fadvice(DONTNEED) is not > > sufficient. > > I suggested the idea originally. Let me address each of your questions in > turn:
I'd also be interested to see some analysis about path-based interface vs. file descriptor-base interface. What are cons and pros. E.g. if my path is a symlink, with path-based interface it is not obvious whether I drop caches for the symlink itself or caches of the target. Note, if there are no answers, fine with me, I am asking just out of curiosity. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
