On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:36:06PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello. > > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Your patch is very confusing. In your description, as well as in the > > comments you talk about tmpfs, but your patch does not touch even one > > line of tmpfs and only changes ramfs. Even your variables and arguments > > refer to tmpfs. The Kconfig entry indicates that the feature depends > > on TMPFS too. > > > > Judging from the following comment : > > * Original tmpfs doesn't set ramfs_dir_inode_operations.setattr field. > > > > I suspect that you confuse both filesystems. > > - ramfs is in fs/ramfs and is always compiled in, you cannot disable it > > - tmpfs is in mm/shmem.c and is optional. It also supports options that > > ramfs does not (eg: size) and data may be swapped. > > > > Please understand that I'm not discussing the usefulness of your patch, > > I'm just trying to avoid a huge confusion. > > Oh, I thought the filesystem mounted by "mount -t tmpfs none /tmp" is "tmpfs" Yes, that is a tmpfs. > and the source code of "tmpfs" is located in fs/ramfs directory. No, ramfs is what you get by "mount -t ramfs none /tmp" :-) You will notice that "df" will not report your ramfs by default because it reports zero blocks. But "mount" or "df /tmp" will report it. > So, I should write the description as "an extension to ramfs" rather than > "an extension to tmpfs". and please also the comments, macros and variable names in the code, as they are what confused me first. > I'll fix it in next posting. Thanks, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
