Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: unify shmem and tiny-shmem | From | Matt Mackall <> | Date | Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:57:26 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:39 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On a different but related subject: > do you think we need to retain the CONFIG_TMPFS option? It's rather > odd these days, since everybody gets ramfs, and you give them tmpfs > via ramfs without CONFIG_SHMEM. If anybody wants to cut out the > TMPFS code overhead these days, wouldn't they be using !CONFIG_SHMEM?
I agree, it's pretty hard to see a situation where you'd want full swap-backed shm and not full swap-backed tmpfs. I'll spin up a patch to follow on my unification.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
| |