Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable | From | Christoph Rohland <> | Date | 14 Jan 2001 10:56:08 +0100 |
| |
Hi Albert,
"Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes:
> 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.
OK right now I see two alternatives for the name: "tmpfs" for the SUN admins and "vmfs" for expressing what it does and to be in line with "ramfs". Any votes?
> 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.
No, I would go for base-2 only. That's what we typically mean with K and M in the IT world. To be case sensitive is IMHO overkill and confusing.
Greetings Christoph
- 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/
|  |