On Dec 19, Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> wrote: > >> If in the future glibc decides to choose some other implementation > >> for shm_open(), then it has no reason to stay. > > But it has no reason to go away either, since there are many other uses > > too for a tmpfs. > There are many uses for an ext3fs, but that doesn't mean we only have > one ext3 filesystem. What exactly is your reasoning here? That tmpfs will not be removed from the kernel just because shm_open() will switch to a different implementation. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature