On Fri, 18 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Do we need *this*? (compare procfs)
>
> I believe that shmfs's inodes remain "more" in memory than those of
> procfs. That is, procfs ones can find their way out (we can regenerate
> it), while shmfs/tmpfs/ramfs/etc. should not do that (we'd lose the
> file).
Ahh... Okay so shmem inodes are not defraggable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
