Hi Al,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> One point that might be better done differently - since we
> need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS
> as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource
> limits patches from -ac) we might be better off doing a minimal
> variant permanently in kernel (calling it rootfs) and making
> ramfs use rootfs methods. It's completely separate issue, so I've
> done it the simplest way for the time being.
Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a
minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay
so.
Look into mm/shmem.c and look how little is added by CONFIG_TMPFS and
how much is duplicated from ramfs
If we really think the added swap vector per file in tmpfs is a major
overhead we should add the nonswapping functions there.
Greetings
Christoph
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:17 EST