On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> >
> > > I think that is a valid argument as long as it's called "driverfs" or
> > > something, but since the thing is clearly evolving into a "kernelfs"
> >
> > BTW, is that the name you prefer, and will you take the patch?
>
> I do know that "kfs" is too much of a random collection of consonants.
> Looks like something out of an IBM architecture manual. "kernelfs" is more
> acceptable, I think, but it's not perfect either - it's a bit too generic.
> Isn't /proc a kernelfs too? But I can't come up with anything better..
The fantasy that we have is to start reverting procfs back to what it was
originally designed for (and what the name hints at): displaying process
information. Of course, that will never be entirely possible, but we'll
always have our dreams.
Peter Anvin suggest 'kernfs', which ain't bad. Then again, we could just
call it 'patfs'..
-pat
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:32 EST