Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:43:25 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ramfs: ignore tmpfs options when we emulate it
Message-ID: <20090614104325.GA6046@localhost>
References: <1244872920-13511-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906131456090.5069@sister.anvils> <20090614100110.GA19875@localhost> <8bd0f97a0906140320r41b37f7by362d23fa3242234a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0906140320r41b37f7by362d23fa3242234a@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1911
Lines: 37

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:20:11PM +0800, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:01, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:15:51PM +0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On systems where CONFIG_SHMEM is disabled, mounting tmpfs filesystems can
> >> > fail when tmpfs options are used.  This is because tmpfs creates a small
> >> > wrapper around ramfs which rejects unknown options, and ramfs itself only
> >> > supports a tiny subset of what tmpfs supports.  This makes it pretty hard
> >> > to use the same userspace systems across different configuration systems.
> >> > As such, ramfs should ignore the tmpfs options when tmpfs is merely a
> >> > wrapper around ramfs.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed, thanks a lot for reporting this.
> >>
> >> But I'm uneasy with making ramfs behaviour differ with CONFIG_SHMEM
> >> (perhaps that's silly: certainly tmpfs behaviour differs with it),
> >> and uneasy with coding a list of options we need to remember to keep
> >> in synch with mm/shmem.c.  It's easier to justify ignoring all options,
> >> than rejecting some while ignoring others yet not respecting them.
> >
> > We can avoid the burden of syncing a list of options between
> > ramfs<>tmpfs by a slightly differently patch. Hopefully this makes
> > ramfs behave like other filesystems when used standalone.
> 
> i think Hugh's suggestion to change the behavior of ramfs back to the
> way it has always been (ignore unknown options) is the way to go
> rather than making it change behavior based on configuration

Right. I've just posted a new patch. Does that make sense to you?

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/