Alexander Viro writes:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > if (open("/dev/console", O_RDWR, 0) < 0)
> > > > printk("Warning: unable to open an initial console.\n");
> > >
> > > Also, perhaps devfs could mount on /dev even if /dev is missing?
> > And perhaps it should format your hard disk, download a distribution and
> > configure it if / isnt mountable ?
> OK, since I did a lot of wading through the mount-related code lately, let
> me add a couple of things:
> a) fixed *WHAM* pathnames *WHAM* are fucking evil *WHAM*
> b) there is no real need to mount shmfs to get the things working.
> Provable: I've done that.
> c) the whole concept of monolytic devfs is a bullshit, excusable
> only because we lack union-mounts. As soon as they are in the devfs will
> be heading out. There _is_ a point in a driver providing a tiny filesystem
Will it now? Is that what Linus thinks, too? I'm sure he had a good
reason to include devfs. Even once we have union mounts, devfs will
still be useful.
> with right set of devices and user union-mounting it on /dev,
> /dev/tape, /dev/hamster/duct/tape, whatever. But 'register a set of stuff
> into the devfs' thing is a bad design.
> d) funny as it sounds, in-kernel template for root is not a bad
> thing. Provided the presense of union-mount, again. It would make for more
> regular code in initialization sequence.
> e) yes, Richard, we all know that you've got your own vision of
> the way things should be done. That's OK, just don't inflict it on those
> who don't want it, will you? Oh, and search on the net for "Mr. Bill's
Now, Al, was there some point to all this abuse? If you had a point to
make, it would have been easier to grok it if there was more substance
and less ranting.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST