Okay, the sleep situation has not improved. I'll admit that right now. But it's ABOUT to. G'night... Rob
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rob Landley wrote: > > 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. The thing is, that I'm not sure that even the extended ramfs is really useful except for very controlled environments (ie initrd-type things where the contents of the ramdisk is _controlled_, and as such the addition of limits is not necessarily all that useful a feature). Others have spoken up on why tmpfs isn't a good thing either, with good arguments. So it's not all about teaching. I think the ramfs limit code has a good argument from Alan for embedded devices, so that probably will make it in. However, even so it's obviously not a 2.4.1 issue, AND as shown by the fact that apparently the thing is buggy and still worked on I wouldn't want the patches right now in the first place. Linus
