[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Ramdisks and tmpfs problems
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:52:37PM +0200, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Sean Hunter wrote:
> >> /dev is for devices, why do you use it for mounting filesystems?
> >
> > Normally yes, but the tmpfs provides posix shared memory semantics
> > and thus /dev/shm is the "normal" place to mount it. Don't blame
> > me.
> Yes, and he does not want to use it for POSIX shared mem, but as a
> local filesystem. So he should mount it where he needs it and
> definitely not misunse the posix mount for different things.

The whole point was that he was doing extra copies and mount/unmounts that he
didn't need. He couldn't just mount it in /etc/ in the first place because he
needed to copy stuff from the underlying fs that was there onto the tmpfs.

point -------------------------->
<------------- Christoph Rohland

Which is why I proposed two mounts:

(1) A mount under /dev/shm reflecting its nature and role as providing posix
shared mem (convenient because its not /etc where he already _has_ files)

(2) A bind mount under /etc reflecting its nature and role as providing a
ram-based file system (convenient because that's where he actually wants the fs
to be)

I just suggested that by mounting it what has been established as the canonical
place for mounting tmpfs and using a bind mount he doesn't need the extra

Sheesh. Next thing you'll be asking if a filesystem can have buddha nature.

Sean "Mu" Hunter
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.031 / U:1.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site