Okay, the sleep situation has not improved. I'll admit that right now.
But it's ABOUT to. G'night...
Rob
attached mail follows:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> So fork ramfs already. Copy the snapshot you like as an educational
> tool, call it skeletonfs.c or some such, and let the current code evolve
> into something more useful.
The thing is, that I'm not sure that even the extended ramfs is really
useful except for very controlled environments (ie initrd-type things
where the contents of the ramdisk is _controlled_, and as such the
addition of limits is not necessarily all that useful a feature). Others
have spoken up on why tmpfs isn't a good thing either, with good
arguments.
So it's not all about teaching.
I think the ramfs limit code has a good argument from Alan for embedded
devices, so that probably will make it in. However, even so it's obviously
not a 2.4.1 issue, AND as shown by the fact that apparently the thing is
buggy and still worked on I wouldn't want the patches right now in the
first place.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 21:00:25 EST