(Argh! Linus replies to my post and my cc: to the linux-kernel was to rutgers.edu. Teach me to post on three hours of sleep, it's like getting a hole-in-one with nobody around...) Linus said in Re: Patch (repost): cramfs memory corruption fix > I wonder what to do about this - the limits are obviously useful, > as would the "use swap-space as a backing store" thing be. At the > same time I'd really hate to lose the lean-mean-clean ramfs. So fork ramfs already. Copy the snapshot you like as an educational tool, call it skeletonfs.c or some such, and let the current code evolve into something more useful. Seems to me a dude named Andrew was in a similar situation a decade or so back, and decided to resist all change in the name of having a clear educational example. Patch pressure built up past the "reimplementation from scratch threshold event horizon thingy" (the tanenbaum-torvalds barrier), at which point the code forked under its own weight anyway. Saves a lot of bother to do it now, if you ask me. You'll wind up with a new ramfs one way or the other. People will keep writing it as long as it's not there. (The whole "why climb mount everest" thing, you know.) I could, of course, be totally wrong about this... Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/