[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] Simple tamper-proof device filesystem.
    On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:36:06PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
    > Hello.
    > Willy Tarreau wrote:
    > > Your patch is very confusing. In your description, as well as in the
    > > comments you talk about tmpfs, but your patch does not touch even one
    > > line of tmpfs and only changes ramfs. Even your variables and arguments
    > > refer to tmpfs. The Kconfig entry indicates that the feature depends
    > > on TMPFS too.
    > >
    > > Judging from the following comment :
    > > * Original tmpfs doesn't set ramfs_dir_inode_operations.setattr field.
    > >
    > > I suspect that you confuse both filesystems.
    > > - ramfs is in fs/ramfs and is always compiled in, you cannot disable it
    > > - tmpfs is in mm/shmem.c and is optional. It also supports options that
    > > ramfs does not (eg: size) and data may be swapped.
    > >
    > > Please understand that I'm not discussing the usefulness of your patch,
    > > I'm just trying to avoid a huge confusion.
    > Oh, I thought the filesystem mounted by "mount -t tmpfs none /tmp" is "tmpfs"

    Yes, that is a tmpfs.

    > and the source code of "tmpfs" is located in fs/ramfs directory.

    No, ramfs is what you get by "mount -t ramfs none /tmp" :-)
    You will notice that "df" will not report your ramfs by default because it
    reports zero blocks. But "mount" or "df /tmp" will report it.

    > So, I should write the description as "an extension to ramfs" rather than
    > "an extension to tmpfs".

    and please also the comments, macros and variable names in the code, as they
    are what confused me first.

    > I'll fix it in next posting.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-06 08:57    [W:0.021 / U:185.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site