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
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
DEC-20".
Down, not across
Al
-
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 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:24 EST