Re: question about kernel 2.4 ramdisk

[Tachino Nobuhiro]

At 05 Dec 2001 09:23:03 +0100,
Christoph Rohland wrote:
> 
> Hi Tachino,
> 
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2001, Tachino Nobuhiro wrote:
> > +		if (!strcmp(optname, "maxfilesize") && value) {
> > +			p->filepages = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0)
> > +				/ K_PER_PAGE;
> > +			if (*value)
> > +				return -EINVAL;
> > +		} else if (!strcmp(optname, "maxsize") && value) {
> > +			p->pages = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0)
> > +				/ K_PER_PAGE;
> > +			if (*value)
> > +				return -EINVAL;
> > +		} else if (!strcmp(optname, "maxinodes") && value) {
> > +			p->inodes = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0);
> > +			if (*value)
> > +				return -EINVAL;
> > +		} else if (!strcmp(optname, "maxdentries") && value) {
> > +			p->dentries = simple_strtoul(value, &value, 0);
> > +			if (*value)
> > +				return -EINVAL;
> > +		}
> 
> Please! If you do the limit checking for ramfs adapt the same options
> like shmem.c i.e. size,nr_inodes,nr_blocks,mode(+uid+gid). Don't
> invent yet another mount option set. Also give them the same
> semantics. Best would be to use shmem_parse_options.

These options are not my invention. Ramfs in 2.4.13-ac7 already has them.
But I agree the original options are not easy to understand, so if compatibility
does not matter, I am glad to change them.

> Further thought: Wouldn't it be better to add a no_swap mount option
> to shmem and try to merge the two? There is a lot of code duplication
> between mm/shmem.c and fs/ramfs/inode.c.
> 

I thought that too. but I don't know it should be done in stable kernel series.