Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-04 Thread Christoph Rohland
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There was a post recently (that now I can't find), that said the shm > management was done with an interal fs. Was that Posix or sysv shm ? SYSV shm and shared anonymous mappings are using a kern_mount of shm/tmpfs. So the CONFIG_TMPFS does only

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-04 Thread Christoph Rohland
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you need it for POSIX shm or not... if so, I would say you do need it > (even if it's going to take some time until POSIX shm becomes widely > used.) Yes, you need it. glibc 2.2 will search for a shm fs on shm_open. And without it fails. And the

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-04 Thread Christoph Rohland
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you need it for POSIX shm or not... if so, I would say you do need it (even if it's going to take some time until POSIX shm becomes widely used.) Yes, you need it. glibc 2.2 will search for a shm fs on shm_open. And without it fails. And the

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-04 Thread Christoph Rohland
"J . A . Magallon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was a post recently (that now I can't find), that said the shm management was done with an interal fs. Was that Posix or sysv shm ? SYSV shm and shared anonymous mappings are using a kern_mount of shm/tmpfs. So the CONFIG_TMPFS does only make

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 02.03 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Christoph Rohland wrote: > > > > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? > > > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching... > > > > Yes, it is no longer needed. You

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Christoph Rohland wrote: > > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? > > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching... > > Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there > are not a lot

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread Christoph Rohland
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did not get the chance to deal too much with it, but apart from moving > functionality from userspace (ipcs) to kernel (ls), what were/could be the > benefits of /dev/shm ?. Can you create a shared memory segment by simply > creating a file

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread Christoph Rohland
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching... Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there are not a lot of program out there using it. > In some

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread Christoph Rohland
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? One step more towards easy 2.2 - 2.4 switching... Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there are not a lot of program out there using it. In some ways it's

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread Christoph Rohland
"J . A . Magallon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did not get the chance to deal too much with it, but apart from moving functionality from userspace (ipcs) to kernel (ls), what were/could be the benefits of /dev/shm ?. Can you create a shared memory segment by simply creating a file there, or

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Christoph Rohland wrote: "H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? One step more towards easy 2.2 - 2.4 switching... Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there are not a lot of program out

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-03 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 02.03 H. Peter Anvin wrote: Christoph Rohland wrote: "H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? One step more towards easy 2.2 - 2.4 switching... Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm,

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 02.02 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > "J . A . Magallon" wrote: > > > > On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: > > > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory > > > > segments?! > > > > > > Unfortunately we lost this

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread H. Peter Anvin
"J . A . Magallon" wrote: > > On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: > > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory > > > segments?! > > > > Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm > > now

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory > > segments?! > > Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm > now works only on an internal mounted instance and

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread Christoph Rohland
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory > segments?! Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not link the directory entry to the deleted

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread Christoph Rohland
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory segments?! Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not link the directory entry to the deleted

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: "H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory segments?! Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread H. Peter Anvin
"J . A . Magallon" wrote: On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: "H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory segments?! Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm now works only on an

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-02 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 02.02 H. Peter Anvin wrote: "J . A . Magallon" wrote: On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: "H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory segments?! Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-01 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author:Christoph Rohland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Hi, > > here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1 > > Have fun > Christoph > > diff -uNr

[patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-01 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi, here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1 Have fun Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes --- 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes Tue Jan 30 11:06:59 2001 +++ 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes Thu Feb 1 22:04:13 2001

[patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-01 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi, here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1 Have fun Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes --- 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes Tue Jan 30 11:06:59 2001 +++ 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes Thu Feb 1 22:04:13 2001

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

2001-02-01 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By author:Christoph Rohland [EMAIL PROTECTED] In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel Hi, here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1 Have fun Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes