[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
Albert D. Cahalan ( wrote:
> 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.

I agree with Albert; if it does the same thing as Sun's tmpfs,
let's call it tmpfs, and use the same options.

- Dan
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:0.025 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site