Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable | Date | Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:14:19 -0500 (EST) |
| |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |