lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: unify shmem and tiny-shmem
From
Date

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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-02 21:03    [W:0.112 / U:0.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site