On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > AC> Millions of apps rely on // working.
> >
> > Are you sure ? Why ? Till there no warning we can not check it.
>
> Because everyone knows // is fine so everyone is really sloppy about
> combining paths together.
>
If there are will be warning such errors will be fixed eventually.
> > POSIX IPC implementation needed finename, visible from userspace. If you
>
> POSIX IPC filespace doesnt have to be visible as the normal file
> space if I remember correctly, thats a luxury add on that makes sense to do.
>
May be.
> > construct such name. With //ipc //ipc/bla-bla-bla will be ALWAYS
> > //ipc/bla-bla-bla -- no matter what and when. The same goes for //proc and
>
> Which is a bug.
>
No :-) It's a feature. Some things are going REAL ugly without such things.
> > AC> mounting /ipc can be handled in startup space quite easily.
> > Then we'll end up with kludges like devpts handling in glibc :-((
>
> Actually putting ipc under devfs or proc isnt too daft. However the only
> case we need to deal with is 'where do I mount ipc if I mount it'. That is
> policy so belongs in user space.
>
> As it stands now if you forget to mount /proc odd things occur. It hasnt killed
> anyone despite predictions that /proc being a real fs would cause doom gloom
> and the end of the world made several years ago 8)
>
It's not killed anyone but it PRODUCED lots and lots of otherwise unneeded
kludges.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:23 EST