Subject: Re: Using tmpfs instead of mfs for "MAKEDEV -M"
To: None <>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/11/2007 17:46:21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 09:26:06PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 02:07:33PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> > mount_tmpfs(8) seems to be quite stable, so I'd like to
> > start using it instead of mount_mfs(8) for "MAKEDEV -M".
> > Not all our INSTALL-like or GENERIC-like kernels include
> > "file-system TMPFS", so I'd make MAKEDEV fall back to
> > using mfs if tmpfs doesn't work.
> I don't know if it is important, but tmpfs does not provide whitespace,
> so mounting it -o union may not always work as one expects.

Note that -o union !=3D mount -t unionfs. Also, my understanding was that=
unionfs created the whiteouts, so that even if tmpfs supported them, you=20
wouldn't see a difference in how /dev is handled.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)