On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > -ac has the rather extended ramfs with resource limits and stuff. That one
> > also has rather more extended bugs 8). AFAIK none of those are in the vanilla
> > ramfs code
> This is actually where I agree with whoever it was that said that ramfs as
> it stands now (without the limit checking etc) is much nicer simply
> because it can act as an example of how to do a simple filesystem.
>
> I wonder what to do about this - the limits are obviously useful, as would
> the "use swap-space as a backing store" thing be. At the same time I'd
> really hate to lose the lean-mean-clean ramfs.
Sounds like a job for ... <drum roll> ... tmpfs!!
(and yes, I share your opinion that ramfs is nice _because_
it's an easy example for filesystem code teaching)
cheers,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
-
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/
