Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Tue May 30 2000 - 22:30:32 EST

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "RE: Bug in how capability inheritance is handled in "fs/exec.c", 2.3.99"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Next in thread: Keith Owens: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 30 May 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> It really doesn't fit within anything else. Besides, flatter trees
> are faster and easier to navigate. So, mount it on /shm.

May you spend the Eternity dealing with RSX-11 and its flat trees...

-
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: Keith Owens: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "RE: Bug in how capability inheritance is handled in "fs/exec.c", 2.3.99"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Next in thread: Keith Owens: "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 - 21:00:26 EST