Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:26:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:26:41 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:51334 "EHLO cherise.pdx.osdl.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:26:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:35:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Mochel X-X-Sender: mochel@cherise.pdx.osdl.net To: Mark Peloquin cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Switching from IOCTLs to a RAMFS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: 1090 Lines: 28 On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Mark Peloquin wrote: > > 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? Use sysfs, please. Coming out of the kernel summit, the goal was to move as much stuff to a ramfs-based system, rather than ioctl and procfs, and Linus explicitly said to try and put them all in the same filesystem. -pat - 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/