[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Patch (repost): cramfs memory corruption fix
Rik van Riel <> writes:

> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > -ac has the rather extended ramfs with resource limits and stuff. That one
> > > also has rather more extended bugs 8). AFAIK none of those are in the
> vanilla
> > > ramfs code
> > This is actually where I agree with whoever it was that said that ramfs as
> > it stands now (without the limit checking etc) is much nicer simply
> > because it can act as an example of how to do a simple filesystem.
> >
> > I wonder what to do about this - the limits are obviously useful, as would
> > the "use swap-space as a backing store" thing be. At the same time I'd
> > really hate to lose the lean-mean-clean ramfs.
> Sounds like a job for ... <drum roll> ... tmpfs!!

If you need tmpfs the VFS layer is broken. For 99% of everything
performance is determined by VFS layer caching. A fs that
uses swap space as a backing store is not a big win. You just have
a fs that doesn't support sync and you can add a mount option to
a normal fs if you want that.

I've written the filesystem and it was a dumb idea.

Ramfs with (maybe) some basic limits has a place. tmpfs is just
extra code to maintain.

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 12:52    [W:0.058 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site