Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: innd mmap bug in 2.4.0-test12 | From | Christoph Rohland <> | Date | 29 Dec 2000 10:39:21 +0100 |
| |
Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> 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
Christoph
- 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/
| |