lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.095 / U:2.756 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site