On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 19, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If in the future glibc decides to choose some other implementation > > for shm_open(), then it has no reason to stay. > But it has no reason to go away either, since there are many other uses > too for a tmpfs.
Sure, but why do we have to keep using one whose main purpose is something else? > > > > /run doesn't especially /need/ to be a tmpfs fs does it? It could Yes, it does, it needs to always be rw and available very early. > I understand that some people want a writeable file system available > before / is mounted rw. Exactly. I suspect some of the /dev/shm usage would have shifted to /run if we had it at the time. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]