In article <linux.kernel.20000417124417.A813@sb.t-online.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <chhellwig@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Hi,
>I've thought a bit about some ideas to replaced devfs with a combination
>of automount and many small virtual filesystems. The idea is the following:
I'd say ick, because it seems like it's replacing a somewhat flawed
(odd and very non-traditional-Unix naming scheme, issues with
multiple mounts) kernel scheme with a somewhat more fragile and
complicated automount arrangement.
I'd think it would be somewhat better to patch devfs so that it can
only be mounted once (as a quick fix to the technical issues that
are now being mentioned; if there are other technical issues with
the current devfs they'll become more visible when Al Viro isn't
fretting quite so much over the multiple-mounts thing) and do a
purely user-mode hack to devfsd to fake multiple mounts.
> - all device that must not be on this virtual file systems (/dev/console,
> (dev/devfsd, a to be implemeted /dev/root, ...) are normal nodes in /dev
> (once we get union-mounts ...).
This, on the other hand, is a non-ick, since a working union-mount
would be a Good Thing, and perhaps a larger body of code that
requires it would shake it out. (Though if Al Viro is the only
person working on it, me might not appreciate the extra stress.
Hopefully RH is keeping his office well stocked with devfs voodoo
dolls)
____
david parsons \bi/ automount. Shudder.
\/
-
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 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST