Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Why shm fs (Was [2.3.51pre2] wrong shm_statfs in ipc/shm.c) | From | Christoph Rohland <> | Date | 11 Mar 2000 15:06:29 +0100 |
| |
Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Christoph Rohland wrote: > I'm not sure it is worth doing either. If it is done, it should > probably a different fs that uses the same shared memory primitives as > shmfs -- so you don't have to include the directory etc. code when > you're only interested in shm.
If we would like to have a tmpfs I would propose something different: We should create a generic directory handling for virtual file systems like tmpfs, devfs etc. Thus the biggest part is done there. If we then also have shm handling in the swap cache instead with special page tables the tmpfs should be really trivial.
Greetings Christoph
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |