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 10:50:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:50:00 -0400 Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de ([194.39.131.53]:54692 "EHLO smtpde02.sap-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:49:48 -0400 From: Christoph Rohland To: Alexander Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1) In-Reply-To: Organisation: SAP LinuxLab Date: 16 May 2001 16:43:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SAP: out X-SAP: out X-SAP: out Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Al, On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > One point that might be better done differently - since we > need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS > as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource > limits patches from -ac) we might be better off doing a minimal > variant permanently in kernel (calling it rootfs) and making > ramfs use rootfs methods. It's completely separate issue, so I've > done it the simplest way for the time being. Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay so. Look into mm/shmem.c and look how little is added by CONFIG_TMPFS and how much is duplicated from ramfs If we really think the added swap vector per file in tmpfs is a major overhead we should add the nonswapping functions there. Greetings Christoph