Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement

From: Christoph Hellwig (chhellwig@gmx.net)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2000 - 11:40:57 EST

Next message: Robert de Vries: "Re: Multiple timers in user space??"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH] Don't set $(MAKE) in toplevel Makefile"
In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement"
Next in thread: david parsons: "Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 10:39:46AM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> What an appallingly bad idea. So instead of one filesystem, we now
> have dozens?!? Talk about kernel bloat!

There should of cource be some kind of skeleton code, that does 99% of the stuff.

> So what exactly is the point of this exercise?

Be much more like plan9 ;)

> What problems are you solving?

Moving more code to userspace.
Much simpler fs code (shared between the devfses)

> And if you are
> solving any real technical problems, why can't that be done with
> devfs+devfsd?

chroot()
no more magic mounting on /dev

Christoph

-- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

- 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/

Next message: Robert de Vries: "Re: Multiple timers in user space??"
Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH] Don't set $(MAKE) in toplevel Makefile"
In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement"
Next in thread: david parsons: "Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST