Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why.

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Date: Tue Apr 04 2000 - 05:57:15 EST

Next message: François romieu: "[patch] 2.3.99pre4-3 compile problem with econet.c"
Previous message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: [PATCH] fixes for kernel with no procfs."
In reply to: bert hubert: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Next in thread: Bill Maidment: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Followup to: <20000404124629.D28585@home.ds9a.nl>
By author: bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 12:53:25AM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> > Was looking over the 2.3.99 differences (versus 2.3.40) and came across a few
> > people having to create a /var/shm in order to do anything shared-memory. Why
> > do we need a increasing number of virtual filesystems these days to please the
> > kernel? Whatever happened to just having good old /proc and kernel-level
>
> We soon won't anymore - Al Viros 'single' mount option allows the kernel to
> work an 'unmounted' filesystem.
>

You still need it to do POSIX shared memory, though.

It should be /dev/shm, not /var/shm, though. /var/shm was a misguided
early suggestion.

-hpa

-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

- 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/

Next message: François romieu: "[patch] 2.3.99pre4-3 compile problem with econet.c"
Previous message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: [PATCH] fixes for kernel with no procfs."
In reply to: bert hubert: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Next in thread: Bill Maidment: "Re: Shmem filesystem? DevFS? Why."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST