Re: Ramdisks and tmpfs problems

[Sean Hunter <sean@dev.sportingbet.com>]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:52:37PM +0200, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Sean Hunter wrote:
> >> /dev is for devices, why do you use it for mounting filesystems?
> > 
> > Normally yes, but the tmpfs provides posix shared memory semantics
> > and thus /dev/shm is the "normal" place to mount it.  Don't blame
> > me.
> 
> Yes, and he does not want to use it for POSIX shared mem, but as a
> local filesystem. So he should mount it where he needs it and
> definitely not misunse the posix mount for different things.

The whole point was that he was doing extra copies and mount/unmounts that he
didn't need.   He couldn't just mount it in /etc/ in the first place because he
needed to copy stuff from the underlying fs that was there onto the tmpfs.

point -------------------------->
<------------- Christoph Rohland

Which is why I proposed two mounts:

(1) A mount under /dev/shm reflecting its nature and role as providing posix
shared mem (convenient because its not /etc where he already _has_ files)

(2) A bind mount under /etc reflecting its nature and role as providing a
ram-based file system (convenient because that's where he actually wants the fs
to be)

I just suggested that by mounting it what has been established as the canonical
place for mounting tmpfs and using a bind mount he doesn't need the extra
copies/mounts.

Sheesh.  Next thing you'll be asking if a filesystem can have buddha nature.

Sean "Mu" Hunter