Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)

[Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com>]

Hi Al,

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> 	One point that might be better done differently - since we
> need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS
> as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource
> limits patches from -ac) we might be better off doing a minimal
> variant permanently in kernel (calling it rootfs) and making
> ramfs use rootfs methods. It's completely separate issue, so I've
> done it the simplest way for the time being.

Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a
minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay
so.

Look into mm/shmem.c and look how little is added by CONFIG_TMPFS and
how much is duplicated from ramfs

If we really think the added swap vector per file in tmpfs is a major
overhead we should add the nonswapping functions there.

Greetings
		Christoph