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

From: H. Peter Anvin (
Date: Thu May 25 2000 - 20:08:40 EST

Followup to: <20000525214728.A11347@cesarb.personal>
By author: Cesar Eduardo Barros <>
In newsgroup:
> 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?

*Sigh*... can someone *please* stop suggesting /var/shm? It's a
damaging and hideously bad prescedent, and regardless what you
suggest, people are going to follow what's in the docs.

/dev/shm is definitely the preferred choice; /shm would be an
acceptable second choice. Putting it in /var, where you may run afoul
of backup programs and other automated maintenance scripts, is *BAD*.


<> at work, <> 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 Please read the FAQ at

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