Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why.

From: bert hubert (ahu@ds9a.nl)
Date: Tue Apr 04 2000 - 05:46:29 EST

Next message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: [PATCH] fixes for kernel with no procfs."
Previous message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Avoiding *mandatory* overcommit..."
In reply to: Byron Stanoszek: "Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 12:53:25AM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> Was looking over the 2.3.99 differences (versus 2.3.40) and came across a few
> people having to create a /var/shm in order to do anything shared-memory. Why
> do we need a increasing number of virtual filesystems these days to please the
> kernel? Whatever happened to just having good old /proc and kernel-level

We soon won't anymore - Al Viros 'single' mount option allows the kernel to
work an 'unmounted' filesystem.

Regards,

bert hubert.

-- | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl | | - U N I X - | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95

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

Next message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: [PATCH] fixes for kernel with no procfs."
Previous message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Avoiding *mandatory* overcommit..."
In reply to: Byron Stanoszek: "Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST