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

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Date: Thu Jun 01 2000 - 13:21:18 EST


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.
>
> David Howells

/proc really also should have been under /dev, however, there were
historical precendent (SysV) for /proc. However, there is no reason to
perpetuate this with additional filesystems.

        -hpa

-
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 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST