Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> On 1 Feb 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> > GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> writes:
> >
> > > And now I have a question:
> > > I guess almost all users have no shmpath (default: /var/shm),
> > > and they maybe make a dir and have to mount it.
> > > IMHO, it is better to change that sysv shared memory works
> > > samely, whenever shmfs is not mounted. Is it feasible,
> > > or only my mistaken ?
> >
> > This was my first attempt, but all the gurus opposed to that since
> > this needed some hacks to the VFS layer.
> >
> > Since shmat, etc rely on the VFS functions, we have to mount the fs to
> > use these functions.
>
> Why not use //shm for the path, or //proc/shm so that if the kernel will
> ever honour the extra // namespace even no hacks are required to have
> the shmfs mounted in every chroot environment? Btw, proc should be
> mounted as //proc, too. Using /var/shm is too much educating the user
> IMHO. If you have to mount the shmfs by using mount anyway would it not
> be possible to extract the directory used by using the information from
> the remount_fs() superblock operation?
O.K. I will add the additional / to all shm pathes internally.
I do not like the path //shm since it clutters the root dircetory
further.
I tried to extract he path in my first version, but did not like the
hack needed for this. Since the information is not known to
read_super, you always need a hack to extract the name. Thus I fell
back to the old principle 'keep it small an stupid^H^H^H^H^Himple'
Greetings
Christoph
--- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 07 2000 - 21:00:06 EST