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

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
Date: Sat Jun 03 2000 - 13:31:06 EST

Next message: Marco Colombo: "Re: tulip broken in 2.4.0-t1-ac6/7"
Previous message: Manfred Spraul: "Re: How to sleep a kernel thread?"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Followup to: <200006030736.e537aY206837@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>
By author: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Shitting into /dev is somehow better? Unlike /dev/pts, the shm
> filesystem is not full of devices. Let's keep /dev for devices.
> One doesn't fix /proc by moving the problems into /dev.
>

It is, if you think what a device node really is: it's a special file
provided as a point of interaction with the kernel. This is exactly
what shmfs provides, so yes, it is appropriate.

-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: Marco Colombo: "Re: tulip broken in 2.4.0-t1-ac6/7"
Previous message: Manfred Spraul: "Re: How to sleep a kernel thread?"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "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 - 21:00:17 EST