On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, David Gibson wrote:
> The options are different because the ramfs limits patch predates
But tmpfs made it earlier into the kernel and if we want to merge the
ramfs patch we should unify the options.
>> Further thought: Wouldn't it be better to add a no_swap mount
>> option to shmem and try to merge the two? There is a lot of code
>> duplication between mm/shmem.c and fs/ramfs/inode.c.
> Possibly. In fact the patch to fs/ramfs/inode.c will be
> insufficient - the limits patch also requires a change to struct
> address_space_operations in fs.h, and also a change in mm/pagemap.c.
> shmfs applies the limits in a different way which doesn't need this, I
> haven't looked at it enough to see how it's done - by the time shmfs
> came around I'd moved on from the ramfs stuff.
I thought the patch in question does it without the removepage
> On the other hand one of the nice things about ramfs is it's
> simplicity and ramfs with limits is quite a bit less complex than
But the core of shmem is always compiled. And the rest is as simple as
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 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:12 EST