Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:21:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>
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.
My personal preference is with those think /shm is a better place, but I
agree that /var/shm is a bad place for it.
Besides the "people may have /var cleaners that get confused" reason,
/var is often a mountpoint in its own right (for those people who give
/var its own filesystem), and mounting /var/shm on top of /var means
that if something goes wrong and you can't unmount /var/shm, you won't
be able to unmount /var, either.
- Ted
-
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 - 21:00:15 EST