linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: unify shmem and tiny-shmem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1222973846.13453.56.camel@calx>
Date:	Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:57:26 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: unify shmem and tiny-shmem


On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:39 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On a different but related subject:
> do you think we need to retain the CONFIG_TMPFS option?  It's rather
> odd these days, since everybody gets ramfs, and you give them tmpfs
> via ramfs without CONFIG_SHMEM.  If anybody wants to cut out the
> TMPFS code overhead these days, wouldn't they be using !CONFIG_SHMEM?

I agree, it's pretty hard to see a situation where you'd want full
swap-backed shm and not full swap-backed tmpfs. I'll spin up a patch to
follow on my unification.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/