Re: [PATCH] mm: unify shmem and tiny-shmem

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:39 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On a different but related subject:
> do you think we need to retain the CONFIG_TMPFS option?  It's rather
> odd these days, since everybody gets ramfs, and you give them tmpfs
> via ramfs without CONFIG_SHMEM.  If anybody wants to cut out the
> TMPFS code overhead these days, wouldn't they be using !CONFIG_SHMEM?

I agree, it's pretty hard to see a situation where you'd want full
swap-backed shm and not full swap-backed tmpfs. I'll spin up a patch to
follow on my unification.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/