On Sun, 14.11.10 10:41, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On 13 November 2010 23:28, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 13.11.10 23:12, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen > > ([email protected]) wrote: > > > >> It's not totally clear from the discussions on this list, what kind of > >> items you intend to go in XDG_USER_DIR? As I read it we are mainly > >> talking sockets, fifos, pid-files and such. However what about stuff > >> with non-negligible size - downloads in progress, short lived caches, > >> etc. I unpack tonnes of source packages that I always forget to delete > >> - will XDG_RUNTIME_DIR be suitible for this? > > > > No. $XDG_CACHE_HOME is for that, or /tmp. > > Ok, good. I was hoping to hear that. However I think you must make > that crystal clear in the spec, as I'm pretty sure that I head people > talking about using it for stuff like this. The XDG basedir spec is already pretty clear about that. We'll just add the definition of XDG_RUNTIME_DIR to that. > >> I heard mention of using it for mmap()ed files - but if the runtime > >> dir is on a tmpfs (and not swapped) that would seem to undermine the > >> value of mmapping it - or am I misunderstanding something? > > > > Hmm? tmpfs and mmap mix very well, not sure what you are intending to > > say. Note that /dev/shm is usually tmpfs as well. > > Ok, I haven't thought this completely through. My idea was just that > having a mmap() of something that was already held in memory on a > tmpfs was sorta superfluous, only adding a convenience API to access > it like an array. But on second consideration I realize that there are > numerous other benefits. mmap() is not an API to make something be "held in memory". It's just a different way in accessing a file, regardless of the backing store. > But it brings me back to the question about what is "legal" to keep in > XDG_RUNTIME_DIR. Is a file big enough to consider mmap()ing ok? I am not sure I understand your question. As long as we care for 32bit machines it is of course a bad idea to place files > 2G in the directory, because after we did that we would already have run out of address space. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
