Re: No! (was: Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?)

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
Date: Tue May 30 2000 - 17:10:33 EST

Next message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: unix socket & fcntl => kernel oops ?"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: 2.4.0test1-ac4 - mount problem"
In reply to: Michael Riepe: "No! (was: Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?)"
Next in thread: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Followup to: <20000530201648.12923@thrai.stud.uni-hannover.de>
By author: Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 09:42:20AM +0000, Thomas Graichen wrote:
> [...]
> > so it does not need to be remountet at all now ???
>
> Correct -- if you use only SYSV IPC.
>

It still needs to be mounted to support POSIX shared memory (as
opposed to SysV shared memory), however.

-hpa

-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

- 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: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: unix socket & fcntl => kernel oops ?"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: 2.4.0test1-ac4 - mount problem"
In reply to: Michael Riepe: "No! (was: Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?)"
Next in thread: 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 - 21:00:25 EST