Subject: Re: question about kernel 2.4 ramdisk
To: david@gibson.dropbear.id.au (David Gibson)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:55:02 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: cr@sap.com (Christoph Rohland),
        tachino@open.nm.fujitsu.co.jp (Tachino Nobuhiro),
        alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox),
        padraig@antefacto.com (Padraig Brady),
        scho1208@yahoo.com (Roy S.C. Ho), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20011206173755.D16513@zax> from "David Gibson" at Dec 06, 2001 05:37:55 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E16C1na-0002Cg-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> simplicity and ramfs with limits is quite a bit less complex than
> shmfs.  Of course, ramfs without limits is even simpler which is, I
> believe, why Linus didn't merge the patch in the first place.

Ramfs without limits is useless. It doesn't provide any guidance to an fs
implementor about error handling. Its _too_ simple.

Alan
-
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/