Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?

From: Cesar Eduardo Barros (cesarb@nitnet.com.br)
Date: Thu May 25 2000 - 19:47:28 EST

Next message: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: [SPOILER] Don't read if you don't like spoilers !"
Previous message: Ricky Beam: "Re: [SPOILER] Don't read if you don't like spoilers !"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Maybe reply: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In 2.3.99-pre10-3, Documentation/Changes has the following lines:

> To use System V shared memory, you have to mount the shm filesystem
> somewhere. You can do that automatically by adding this line to /etc/fstab:
>
> none /var/shm shm defaults 0 0
>
> Remember to create the mountpoint directory; it does not have to be /var/shm.

However, if I recall correctly, the checks for it being mounted were removed
from shm.c a couple of pre-patches ago. Do we still need to mount shmfs or is
the documentation wrong?

-- Cesar Eduardo Barros cesarb@nitnet.com.br cesarb@dcc.ufrj.br

- 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: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: [SPOILER] Don't read if you don't like spoilers !"
Previous message: Ricky Beam: "Re: [SPOILER] Don't read if you don't like spoilers !"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Maybe reply: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:15 EST