On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:58 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/28/2014 12:37 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 01/28/2014 11:56 AM, John Stultz wrote: >>> Thanks for reminding me about O_TMPFILE.. I have it on my list to look >>> into how it could be used. >>> >>> As for the O_TMPFILE only tmpfs option, it seems maybe a little clunky >>> to me, but possible. If others think this would be preferred over a new >>> syscall, I'll dig in deeper. >>> >> What is clunky about it? It reuses an existing interface and still >> points to the specific tmpfs instance that should be populated. > > It would require new mount point convention that userland would have to > standardize. To me (and admittedly its a taste thing), a new > O_TMPFILE-only tmpfs mount point seems to be to be a bigger interface > change from an application writers perspective then a new syscall. > > But maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion? General purpose Linux has /dev/shm/ for that already, which will not go away anytime soon.. Kay -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>