While I still don't see the need for these magic symlinks (for all problems
that I can think of might be solved with this, there are solutions that
work in userland), this side step in the discussion triggered my particular
attention:

> I don't know, one could argue, that stdio buffers are also similar in
> theory and should be merged into the VM/buffer cache as well. I think
> that's silly, but it can be argued for extension from VM/buffer cache
> proposals. Therefore, according to your logic above, since the VM/buffer
> cache proposals, even if sensible, can lead to outrageous proposals, it
> must be bad.

I certainly hope that in the case of a merged VM/buffer cache the stdio
code would be changed to take advantage of this by mapping the file
copy-on-write into user space. This could very well be seen as merging`
the VM/buffer cache with stdio buffers.
--
ws@TooLs.DE     (Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH) 	+49-228-985800