Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:43:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:43:22 -0400 Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de ([194.39.131.53]:45008 "EHLO smtpde02.sap-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:43:17 -0400 From: Christoph Rohland To: Padraig Brady Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ramdisk/tmpfs/ramfs/memfs ? In-Reply-To: <3AE99CE8.BD325F52@antefacto.com> Organisation: SAP LinuxLab In-Reply-To: <3AE99CE8.BD325F52@antefacto.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon) Date: 27 Apr 2001 17:38:19 +0200 Message-ID: Lines: 24 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SAP: out X-SAP: out Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Padraig, On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Padraig Brady wrote: > I don't have swap so don't need tmpfs, but could probably > use it anyway without a backing store? Yes, it does not need backing store. > Anyway why was ramfs created if tmpfs existed, unless tmpfs requires > backing store? They both seem to have been written around the same > time? - shm fs was written as a specialized fs to implement POSIX shared memory based on SYSV shm. - ramfs was introduced shortly after shm fs and was meant as a programming example for a minimal virtual filesystem. - Later shm fs was redone to use the same methods like ramfs but still was only useable for shared memory. - After the release of 2.4.0, I extended shm fs to support read/write and thus be tmpfs and since then it can replace ramfs. Greetings Christoph - 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/