Subject: Re: phasing out mfs; make init(8) use tmpfs?
To: Steven M. Bellovin <email@example.com>
From: Eric Haszlakiewicz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/16/2007 11:44:41
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 <email@example.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?