tmpfs actrually already must diverege from netbsd. we can not just blithly accept changes from there.. our kernel midlayers are very different.
tmpfs actually does not work very well right now. On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Michael McConville <mm...@mykolab.com> wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Michael McConville wrote: >> > Bob Beck wrote: >> > > Stability before performance. Tmpfs does not have the former yet. >> > >> > ok mmcc@ for your PR_ZERO diff, as long as there's a comment added >> > about the performance impact and the potential to back out in the >> > future. >> >> I don't see the point of such a comment. >> Would you want such a comment everywhere PR_ZERO is used? What about >> calloc? Every committed change has the potential to be backed out for >> some reason. > > This just seems like a potential long-term, irreversible divergence. > Specifically, people may start making changes that rely on it or forego > NetBSD bugfixes related to it. IIUC, we pull tmpfs pretty directly from > NetBSD (where it originated), so I was trying to avoid that. Upon > further reflection, I don't know whether these sorts of changes have > already happened, or to what extent people care.
