From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:55:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:55:37 -0400 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:9438 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:55:35 -0400 Message-ID: <3B02BF14.89695966@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:55:32 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5-pre2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Rohland Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alexander Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Rohland wrote: > > Hi Linus, > > On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me. > > > > Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in, > > or make _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs > > does the same things and you need that one for shared mappings etc. > > > > Comments? > > cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o* > -rw-r--r-- 1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs > -rw-r--r-- 1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24 mm/shmem.o+tmpfs > cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o > -rw-r--r-- 1 cr users 141452 Mai 16 19:27 fs/ramfs/ramfs.o > > So CONFIG_TMPFS adds 26k and ramfs 140k. On what system? I don't think this is a good measure... > [jgarzik@rum linux_2_4]$ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o > -rw-r--r-- 1 jgarzik jgarzik 5830 May 15 09:29 fs/ramfs/ramfs.o > [jgarzik@rum linux_2_4]$ ls -l mm/shmem.o (includes tmpfs) > -rw-r--r-- 1 jgarzik jgarzik 17496 May 15 09:28 mm/shmem.o -- Jeff Garzik | Game called on account of naked chick Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft |