Re: [PATCH] devtmpfs: support !CONFIG_TMPFS

[Michael Tokarev]

Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> Make devtmpfs available on (embedded) configurations without SHMEM/TMPFS,
> using ramfs instead.
> 
> Saves ~15KB.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@xxxxxxxxxx>
[]> --- a/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/devtmpfs.c
> @@ -44,7 +45,11 @@ __setup("devtmpfs.mount=", mount_param);
>  static int dev_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type, int flags,
>  		      const char *dev_name, void *data, struct vfsmount *mnt)
>  {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TMPFS
>  	return get_sb_single(fs_type, flags, data, shmem_fill_super, mnt);
> +#else
> +	return get_sb_single(fs_type, flags, data, ramfs_fill_super, mnt);
> +#endif
>  }

May be completely not to the point or even wrong, but I were
starring at this change for quite some time trying to understand
what's the difference.  Can we do it like this:

#ifdef CONFIG_TMPFS
# define devtmpfs_fill_super shmem_fill_super
#else
# define devtmpfs_fill_super ramfs_fill_super
#endif
  	return get_sb_single(fs_type, flags, data, devtmpfs_fill_super, mnt);

?

Or maybe it's just me... ;)

/mjt
--
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/