Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 01 2000 - 04:29:32 EST

Next message: Jan Evert van Grootheest: "Re: Linux 2.5 / 2.6 TODO (preliminary)"
Previous message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
In reply to: David Howells: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Next in thread: Gabor Lenart: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Reply: Gabor Lenart: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, David Howells wrote:

> > Thomas Molina writes:
> >
> > > 1. Why is /var/shm such a bad place?
> ...
> > It really doesn't. It belongs in /dev more than anything, just like
> > /dev/pts and friends.
>
> Why not mount it under /proc somewhere? Maybe /proc/shm.

What does it have with processes? Let's stop shitting into /proc - we'ld
better start moving things out of there...

-
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: Jan Evert van Grootheest: "Re: Linux 2.5 / 2.6 TODO (preliminary)"
Previous message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
In reply to: David Howells: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Next in thread: Gabor Lenart: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Reply: Gabor Lenart: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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