On 01/28/2014 01:01 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > 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.. Right, though making /dev/shm/ O_TMPFILE only would likely break things, no? thanks -john -- 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>