From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ew0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PBTt1-0001Vx-0J for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:55:27 +0000 Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so1130210ewy.36 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Preventing FS full From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Joakim Tjernlund In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:52:10 +0300 Message-ID: <1288277530.2083.56.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 16:24 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Is there any way to temporarily lower the FS full limit(preferably on a process basis) > on JFFS2? > > I want to safeguard the OS from FS full due to some process filling up the disk. Mainstream FSes like ext3 can limit this on per-user or per-group basis, and we had a similar thing for JFFS2, do not remember if we upstreamed this, though. But I did send patches to the mtd ML. FS has not idea about processes - the information about them is not stored on the media, and it is very dynamic and unpredictable. I think it is disaster to try to limit anything in the FS on per-process basis, just makes little sense for me. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)