Thoughts on TMPFS no longer being considered "highly
obrien at freebsd.org
Mon Jun 27 17:42:08 UTC 2011
Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have
PRs covering those.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> - I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with tmpfs. He
> would have more details. I somewhat remember some panic on execve(2) the
> binary located on tmpfs.
I've been following the patches you've been passing to Peter Holm as part
of this thread. Seems good progress has been made in fixing some of the
> Removing the warning will not make the issues coming away.
Quite true, but is there any other subsystem where we know we have bugs
and have put up such a scary warning?
I've never used ZFS on i386, but I understand it is trivial to panic
with out-of-the-box settings. We don't print a dire warning for ZFS
usage on 32-bit platforms. So I'm not sure we should keep it for TMPFS.
I cannot tell from your response if you're OK or against removing
the warning. [especially if your patches pass the Peter Holm test
and remove some of the bugs]
-- David (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
More information about the freebsd-current