Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer we leave ramfs alone as is -- it makes an excellent
> starting point for a new fs and is fairly simple to grok. If we are
> to add any more complexity here like the size limiting patches or the
> use of a backing store, I'd like to have this as a new filesystem,
> something like 'vmfs' or some such.
That's shm fs + read and write which should be easy to add.
> ramfs is small simple and elegant; for mere mortals like me it
> contains enough to help understand what is required of a filesystem
> without obscuring this fact. I'd hate to see that change.
yes. That's why I copied a lot of the ramfs code into mm/shmem.c
Christoph
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
