On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Padraig Brady wrote:
> I don't have swap so don't need tmpfs, but could probably
> use it anyway without a backing store?
Yes, it does not need backing store.
> Anyway why was ramfs created if tmpfs existed, unless tmpfs requires
> backing store? They both seem to have been written around the same
- shm fs was written as a specialized fs to implement POSIX shared
memory based on SYSV shm.
- ramfs was introduced shortly after shm fs and was meant as a
programming example for a minimal virtual filesystem.
- Later shm fs was redone to use the same methods like ramfs but still
was only useable for shared memory.
- After the release of 2.4.0, I extended shm fs to support read/write
and thus be tmpfs and since then it can replace ramfs.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:18 EST