* Luca Capello <l...@pca.it> [110414 06:43]: > Hi there! > > Disclaimer: this is my last post on this matter (i.e. the meaning of > RAMLOCK), it seems there is a problem with myself or my understanding. > > Either I do not read `man rcS` as you read it or we do not understand > each other, so here the situation before and after your patch for /run > (/var/lock became useless, everything is in /run/lock now, but I kept > using /var/lock for consistency with the previous state): > > [before] RAMLOCK=no -> /var/lock on the same filesystem /var is on > RAMLOCK=yes -> /var/lock on tmpfs > [after] RAMLOCK=no -> /var/lock is on tmpfs, shared with /run (given > that /var/lock is symlinked/bind-mounted to > /run/lock) > RAMLOCK=yes -> /var/lock gets its own tmpfs, differently from > the one mounted at /run > > So, the meaning of RAMLOCK, WRT `man rcS` and as I read it, *has* > changed. This is where we do not agree on wordings, but given that > English is not my mother language, maybe it is only my fault. > > Thx, bye, > Gismo / Luca
Luca, It appears to me that you understand perfectly what RAMLOCK does. Your issue appears to be with the wording of the man page. To me (as a native English speaker) the wording is explicit about what will happen if you set RAMLOCK=yes (i.e. a tmpfs will be allocated and mounted at /var/lock--soon to be /run/lock), but is ambiguous as to what will happen if RAMLOCK=no. The implicit meaning is that no tmpfs will be allocated _for /var/lock_ and it will be on the same file system as /var, whatever that may be (soon to be /run/lock and /run). So the implicit behavior is that if RAMLOCK=no, and /var is a tmpfs, /var/lock will simply be a part of the tmpfs on /var. This is indeed the current (pre-/run) behavior, and is exactly the same as what will soon be with /run. The current wording of the man page seems correct to me, even for the new /run directory structure (with appropriate changes from /var/lock to /run/lock), but some minor changes in wording would make the RAMLOCK=no behavior more explicit. I would add the word "separate" and a sentence describing the behavior when RAMLOCK=no: Make /var/lock/ available as a separate ram file system (tmpfs). Will also disable cleaning of /var/lock/ during boot. Set to 'yes' to enable, to 'no' to disable. When 'no', /var/lock is on the same file system as /var. The size of the tmpfs can be controlled using TMPFS_SIZE and LOCK_SIZE in /etc/default/tmpfs. Because of this, packages can not expect directories in /var/lock to exist after boot. Packages expecting this are buggy and need to be fixed. If you like this wording, you should file a wishlist bug on the initscripts package. (I'm not going to because the current wording doesn't bother me.) ...Marvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110414132723.ga3...@cleo.wdw