Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship.
From: Poul-Henning Kamp (phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk)
Date: 01/12/05
- Previous message: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- In reply to: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- Next in thread: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- Reply: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Peter Edwards <peadar.edwards@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:08:35 +0100
In message <34cb7c84050111145415980aa2@mail.gmail.com>, Peter Edwards writes:
>How about mmap() mappings after the close()? These can persist post
>VOP_CLOSE, can't they?
I belive they hold a reference to the vnode so that it is in fact
not really closed after all, it just looks that way from userland.
If that wasn't the case, then we would be leaking diskspace all
over the place if people did:
create file
fill with data
mmap
unlink file
close file
-- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- In reply to: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- Next in thread: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- Reply: Peter Edwards: "Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|