On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 11.11.2013 19:03, schrieb Tristan Schmelcher:
>> From: Tristan Schmelcher
>>
>> Inferring the mount hierarchy correctly from /proc/mounts is hard when
>> MS_MOVE
>> may have been used, and the previous code did it wrongly. This chan
Am 11.11.2013 19:03, schrieb Tristan Schmelcher:
> From: Tristan Schmelcher
>
> Inferring the mount hierarchy correctly from /proc/mounts is hard when MS_MOVE
> may have been used, and the previous code did it wrongly. This change
> simplifies
> the logic to only require that /dev/shm be _on_ tm
On 14 November 2013 08:25, wrote:
> You should probably add /run/shm to the list of tmpfs directories to
> test for (ubuntu systems atleast use this).
On such systems /dev/shm is typically a symlink to /run/shm, so that's covered.
Den 2013-11-11 19:03, skrev Tristan Schmelcher:
> + static const char fallback_dir[] = "/tmp";
> + static const char * const tmpfs_dirs[] = {
> + "/dev/shm",
> + fallback_dir,
> + NULL
> + };
You should probably add /run/shm to the list of tmpfs dire
From: Tristan Schmelcher
Inferring the mount hierarchy correctly from /proc/mounts is hard when MS_MOVE
may have been used, and the previous code did it wrongly. This change simplifies
the logic to only require that /dev/shm be _on_ tmpfs (which can be checked
trivially with statfs) rather than t
