Jan Engelhardt wrote:Also: to let a program believe it was creating files which are used to hold the written data. Otherwise /dev/null would probably be the solution. I think what is going to happen is that files created behave as if they are the result of a mknod resulting in a /dev/null clone. The directory structure can persist, it's the writing of data which can be avoided. Real example: A program which reads log files and prepares a whole raft of reports in a directory specified. If you just want to see the summary (stdout) and exception notices (stderr) having a nulldir would avoid the disk space and i/o load if you were just looking at the critical output rather than the analysis. Yes, if this was an original program requirement it would or should have been a feature. Real world cases sometimes use tools in creative ways. -- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot --
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Michal Piotrowski | Re: 2.6.21-rc5-mm4 |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
| Lovich, Vitali | RE: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX_RING |
git: | |
