Albert D. Cahalan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Christoph Rohland writes: > > I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more > > since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this > > "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not > > think that it's a very good name. > > Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call > your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the > interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name. > > Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage. > The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs. > > Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful. I agree with Albert; if it does the same thing as Sun's tmpfs, let's call it tmpfs, and use the same options. - Dan - 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/
