On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:11:50 -0400 KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motoh...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> --- a/fs/drop_caches.c
> >> +++ b/fs/drop_caches.c
> >> @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int
> >> write,
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >> if (write) {
> >> + printk(KERN_INFO "%s (%d): dropped kernel caches: %d\n",
> >> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), sysctl_drop_caches);
> >> if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1)
> >> iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL);
> >> if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2)
> >
> > How about we do
> >
> > if (!(sysctl_drop_caches & 4))
> > printk(....)
> >
> > so people can turn it off if it's causing problems?
>
> The best interface depends on the purpose. If you want to detect crazy
> application,
> we can't assume an application co-operate us. So, I doubt this works.
You missed the "!". I'm proposing that setting the new bit 2 will
permit people to prevent the new printk if it is causing them problems.
--
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/
