Re: Patch (repost): cramfs memory corruption fix

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> writes:

> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > -ac has the rather extended ramfs with resource limits and stuff. That one
> > > also has rather more extended bugs 8). AFAIK none of those are in the
> vanilla
> 
> > > ramfs code
> 
> > This is actually where I agree with whoever it was that said that ramfs as
> > it stands now (without the limit checking etc) is much nicer simply
> > because it can act as an example of how to do a simple filesystem. 
> > 
> > I wonder what to do about this - the limits are obviously useful, as would
> > the "use swap-space as a backing store" thing be. At the same time I'd
> > really hate to lose the lean-mean-clean ramfs. 
> 
> Sounds like a job for ... <drum roll> ... tmpfs!!

If you need tmpfs the VFS layer is broken.  For 99% of everything
performance is determined by VFS layer caching.  A fs that
uses swap space as a backing store is not a big win.  You just have 
a fs that doesn't support sync and you can add a mount option to
a normal fs if you want that.

I've written the filesystem and it was a dumb idea.

Ramfs with (maybe) some basic limits has a place.  tmpfs is just
extra code to maintain. 

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/