Messages in this thread | | | From | Christoph Rohland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1) | Date | 16 May 2001 16:43:37 +0200 |
| |
Hi Al,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > One point that might be better done differently - since we > need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS > as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource > limits patches from -ac) we might be better off doing a minimal > variant permanently in kernel (calling it rootfs) and making > ramfs use rootfs methods. It's completely separate issue, so I've > done it the simplest way for the time being.
Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay so.
Look into mm/shmem.c and look how little is added by CONFIG_TMPFS and how much is duplicated from ramfs
If we really think the added swap vector per file in tmpfs is a major overhead we should add the nonswapping functions there.
Greetings Christoph
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |