Re: innd mmap bug in 2.4.0-test12

From: Christoph Rohland (
Date: Fri Dec 29 2000 - 04:39:21 EST

Chris Wedgwood <> writes:

> I would prefer we leave ramfs alone as is -- it makes an excellent
> starting point for a new fs and is fairly simple to grok. If we are
> to add any more complexity here like the size limiting patches or the
> use of a backing store, I'd like to have this as a new filesystem,
> something like 'vmfs' or some such.

That's shm fs + read and write which should be easy to add.

> ramfs is small simple and elegant; for mere mortals like me it
> contains enough to help understand what is required of a filesystem
> without obscuring this fact. I'd hate to see that change.

yes. That's why I copied a lot of the ramfs code into mm/shmem.c


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 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 21:00:12 EST