> I'm one of the guys who would very much like working tmpfs. Actually, it > has worked "good enough for me", but there are a few issues at work. > > - I lack the time needed to fully dive into the kernel part. > - naddy did say multiple times it doesn't go all that fast compared to ffs > with ssd (well, I don't have a ssd on my build machines, so tmpfs is > marginally faster) > - there are loads of small nits in it that should properly be fixed.
But most important -- it recently demonstrated low quality with a of number unexpected NULL dereferences, bogus assertions, and other memory object mishandling -- and came dangerously close to having a security hole. It is below the standard.
