From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:59:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20090613155957.GA16220@shareable.org> References: <4A33A7A2.1050608@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux FS Devel , Linux Embedded , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Walker To: Marco Return-path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:56098 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751766AbZFMP74 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:59:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A33A7A2.1050608@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Marco wrote: > Linux traditionally had no support for a persistent, non-volatile > RAM-based filesystem, persistent meaning the filesystem survives a > system reboot or power cycle intact. The RAM-based filesystems such as > tmpfs and ramfs have no actual backing store but exist entirely in the > page and buffer caches, hence the filesystem disappears after a system > reboot or power cycle. Why is a ramdisk not sufficient for this? Why is an entire filesystem needed, instead of simply a block driver if the ramdisk driver cannot be used? It just struck me as a lot of code which might be completely unnecessary for the desired functionality. -- Jamie