From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14488.15900.402996.763628@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:24:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] shm fs v2 against 2.3.41 In-Reply-To: <20000201190720E.gotom@fe.dis.titech.ac.jp> References: <20000201190720E.gotom@fe.dis.titech.ac.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: GOTO Masanori Cc: hans-christoph.rohland@sap.com, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-MM@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds List-ID: Hi, On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 19:07:20 +0900, GOTO Masanori said: > I guess almost all users have no shmpath (default: /var/shm), > and they maybe make a dir and have to mount it. > IMHO, it is better to change that sysv shared memory works > samely, whenever shmfs is not mounted. Is it feasible, > or only my mistaken ? Even tools as fundamental as "ps" don't work until /proc is mounted, so I don't see anything wrong with requiring shmfs to be mounted for sysV shared memory to work correctly. --Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/