Re: What's wrong with tmpfs?

[Matt Mackall]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 10:15:06AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:53:00PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 10/30/05, Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > If somebody needs a reproduction sequence, I'm happy to oblige.  In theory
> > > "mount -t tmpfs /mnt /mnt" should do it, but if it was _that_ simple it
> > > wouldn't have shipped...
> > 
> > I don't see this behaviour on a regular desktop box running 2.6.14.
> > Guess it's UML specific.
> 
> Sorry, but wrong.
> 
> IIRC, this triggers when you don't have CONFIG_TMPFS enabled.  If you don't,
> you still get it, but you get a version that's only usable in-kernel.

That sounds like a regression. Turning off CONFIG_TMPFS replaces tmpfs
with an aliased ramfs. It should be perfectly usable everywhere that
tmpfs is, with the exception that it's not swap-backed and doesn't
have an size limiting.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/