On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:40:50PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:11:12 -0600
> Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh@swapsimple.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:04:41PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:55:51PM +0000, Geoff Wing wrote:
> > > > Only TMPFS?  What if TMPFS fails?
> > > 
> > > I agree with you and Izumi Tsutsui, MFS ought to be attempted if
> > > TMPFS fails.
> > 
> > Three questions:
> > How does this work toward the stated goal of phasing out mfs?
> > Why would tmpfs fail?
> > If tmpfs fails, why wouldn't mfs fail?
> > 
> Because it's not in the kernel?  Init should be able to deal with
> that, I think. 

So why is that any different than mfs not being in the kernel?
i.e. why do we need to worry about this error when using tmpfs but
 not when using mfs?

eric