[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable
    Christoph Rohland writes:

    > I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more
    > since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this
    > "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not
    > think that it's a very good name.

    Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call
    your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the
    interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name.

    Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage.
    The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs.

    Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful.

    -o size=111222333 Size in bytes, rounded up by page size.
    -o size=111222k Size in kilobytes (base-2 or ISO standard?)
    -o size=111m Size in megabytes (base-2 or ISO standard?)

    I'd prefer k for ISO standard and K for base-2.
    Of course m isn't millibytes, but that isn't horrible.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.020 / U:8.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site