kernel-user separation: autofs

D.A. Harris (rodmur@ecst.csuchico.edu)
Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:49:11 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: f@#$ing MMX emulator"
Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: f@#$ing MMX emulator"
Next in thread: Adam D. Bradley: "Re: Journaled FS"
Reply: Adam D. Bradley: "Re: Journaled FS"
Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: kernel-user separation: autofs"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: Journaled FS"

This is likely another stupid question. But I've readed some of the debate
on kernel, user space separation, how it is a Good Thing. And then I see
things like autofs being included in the kernel, just on the surface at least,
that would seem to be inconsistent with kernel-user separation. No other
Unix system out there, that I know of, has included autofs/automount/amd stuff
into the kernel, and it's inclusion in Linux struck me as funny, even before
I saw the debate on this list. What benefit does Linux get in including
autofs? And is it not a violation of kernel-user separation?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dale Harris  <rodmur@csuchico.edu>   PGP KeyID: E26EC5FD      
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/
|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: f@#$ing MMX emulator"
Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: f@#$ing MMX emulator"
Next in thread: Adam D. Bradley: "Re: Journaled FS"
Reply: Adam D. Bradley: "Re: Journaled FS"
Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: kernel-user separation: autofs"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: Journaled FS"