Messages in this thread | | | From | Christoph Rohland <> | Subject | Re: question about kernel 2.4 ramdisk | Date | 08 Dec 2001 10:53:48 +0100 |
| |
Hi David,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, David Gibson wrote: > The options are different because the ramfs limits patch predates > shmfs.
But tmpfs made it earlier into the kernel and if we want to merge the ramfs patch we should unify the options.
>> 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. > > Possibly. In fact the patch to fs/ramfs/inode.c will be > insufficient - the limits patch also requires a change to struct > address_space_operations in fs.h, and also a change in mm/pagemap.c. > shmfs applies the limits in a different way which doesn't need this, I > haven't looked at it enough to see how it's done - by the time shmfs > came around I'd moved on from the ramfs stuff.
I thought the patch in question does it without the removepage operation.
> On the other hand one of the nice things about ramfs is it's > simplicity and ramfs with limits is quite a bit less complex than > shmfs.
But the core of shmem is always compiled. And the rest is as simple as ramfs...
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/
| |