Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:20:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:20:14 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.105]:11259 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:20:13 -0400 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Switching from IOCTLs to a RAMFS To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Mark Peloquin" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:23:23 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML072/01/M/IBM(Release 5.0.11 |July 29, 2002) at 10/24/2002 12:26:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 809 Lines: 24 Based on the feedback and comments regarding the use of IOCTLs in EVMS, we are switching to the more preferred method of using a ram based fs. Since we are going through this effort, I would like to get it right now, rather than having to switch to another ramfs system later on. The question I have is: should we roll our own fs, (a.k.a. evmsfs) or should we use sysfs for this purpose? My initial thoughts are that sysfs should be used. However, recent discussions about device mapper have suggested a custom ramfs. Which is the *best* choice? Thanks, Mark - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/