On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 12:21:09PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> That's fine. I think that devfs architecture is a nightmare (sorry,
> Richard), but yes, autofs is a part of the _right_ picture. Remember how
> Plan 9 does devices? Each driver uses generic code to define a filesystem
> (small tree) and you union-mount it on /dev or where the heck you want it
> to be. Make autofs a bit more generic (teach it to mount on /foo upon
> access to /foo/bar) and teach the userland part to run script upon
> (u)mount. That's it. No need to put that code into devfs - we'ld better
> teach already existing thing (autofs) to deal with that stuff (and that
> stuff only).
In my opinion the best idea would be:
- some device (/dev/root (needs to be impmented ...)
/dev/console, etc ...) directly in /dev
- everything othe has it's on fs (idedevfs, scsidevfs, etc ...)
- a /proc ( or /sys ...) file that is a kernel-generated automounter map
e.g. /proc/auto.dev, that contains entry entrys for all fs'es.
so you haave uidedevfs on /dev/ide
- a daemon that makes compatibility symlinks (like devfsd)
- yet another fs, that's union-mounted on /dev and looks up
devices for existing nodes
Christoph
-- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.- 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 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:21 EST