Hi, On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:45:48AM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > Hm, yes. However, some kernels have tmpfs support (it's called tmpfs > now; shmfs has been deprecated, and you /do/ have to configure > it in. 2.4 is broken with the shmfs/tmpfs distinction, btw), others > have ramdisk compiled in or as a module, others don't have it at > all, and it all depends on the kernel you are running at that moment. > As soon as you upgrade the kernel things change and you do not > want them to break ... Hmmm, this is actually why /mem is nice: to abstract away all the different ramfs-like filesystem types. It removes the burden of catering for every kernel type / version from the implementation of /run. Instead of having to find a correct fs type for /run in scripts that set it up, /run could then be defined as a symlink to /mem/run. Perhaps /ram is indeed even better than /mem; we must then just make it clear that it /may/ be emulated on disk or NFS on systems that do not have in-memory filesystems. I still think it's nice to offer applications (such as scripts that need a /run) to offer a generic filesystem interface to virtual memory. Scripts can't make syscalls to get at sysV memory segments, but they can access files in /ram or /mem. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Attachment:
pgpCn1HRJhLNt.pgp
Description: PGP signature