Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable
Dan Kegel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:58:36 -0800
Albert D. Cahalan (email@example.com) wrote:
> Christoph Rohland writes:
> > I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more
> > since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this
> > "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not
> > think that it's a very good name.
> Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call
> your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the
> interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name.
> Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage.
> The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs.
> Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful.
I agree with Albert; if it does the same thing as Sun's tmpfs,
let's call it tmpfs, and use the same options.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/