Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:42:25 +0900 | From | Tachino Nobuhiro <> | Subject | Re: question about kernel 2.4 ramdisk |
| |
At 05 Dec 2001 09:23:03 +0100, Christoph Rohland wrote: > > Hi Tachino, > > On Wed, 05 Dec 2001, Tachino Nobuhiro wrote: > > + if (!strcmp(optname, "maxfilesize") && value) { > > + p->filepages = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0) > > + / K_PER_PAGE; > > + if (*value) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } else if (!strcmp(optname, "maxsize") && value) { > > + p->pages = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0) > > + / K_PER_PAGE; > > + if (*value) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } else if (!strcmp(optname, "maxinodes") && value) { > > + p->inodes = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0); > > + if (*value) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } else if (!strcmp(optname, "maxdentries") && value) { > > + p->dentries = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0); > > + if (*value) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > Please! If you do the limit checking for ramfs adapt the same options > like shmem.c i.e. size,nr_inodes,nr_blocks,mode(+uid+gid). Don't > invent yet another mount option set. Also give them the same > semantics. Best would be to use shmem_parse_options.
These options are not my invention. Ramfs in 2.4.13-ac7 already has them. But I agree the original options are not easy to understand, so if compatibility does not matter, I am glad to change them.
> Further thought: Wouldn't it be better to add a no_swap mount option > to shmem and try to merge the two? There is a lot of code duplication > between mm/shmem.c and fs/ramfs/inode.c. >
I thought that too. but I don't know it should be done in stable kernel series. - 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/
| |