Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable | | From | "James H. Cloos Jr." <> | | Date | 14 Jan 2001 07:56:28 -0600 |
| |
>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com> writes:
Christoph> OK right now I see two alternatives for the name: "tmpfs" Christoph> for the SUN admins and "vmfs" for expressing what it does Christoph> and to be in line with "ramfs". Any votes?
I think vmfs is the better choice. Not to be gratuitously incompatable with sun, but there is no guarentee linux's implementation and sun's will be or remain compatable, so it really doesn't hurt to choose a name which is more descriptive rather than that used by someone else's product -- even if the other product is widely deployed and understood.
>> I'd prefer k for ISO standard and K for base-2. Of course m isn't >> millibytes, but that isn't horrible.
Christoph> No, I would go for base-2 only. That's what we typically Christoph> mean with K and M in the IT world. To be case sensitive is Christoph> IMHO overkill and confusing.
Unquestionably the Right Thing. VM is after all being measured, and RAM is always measured in binary. (OK, I just *know* someone will provide a counter-example disproving that assertion -- perhaps the old 36 bit systems? Or core? But are there any modern counter-examples?)
-JimC -- James H. Cloos, Jr. <http://jhcloos.com/public_key> 1024D/ED7DAEA6 <cloos@jhcloos.com> E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6 - 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/
|  |