On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:14:32AM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> No, not a union mount. We didn't have that last time I looked,
i was under the impression al viro had them planned for 2.5...
hopefully i'm right as i find them rather useful at times under other
systems (openbsd)
> and I have some doubts that it would work all that well. Even
why not? the two namespaces should not clash... and i really hope that
there aren't any tools out there referencing proc via inode num. what
problems do you see?
> if it does work, it doesn't provide drop-in kernel compatibility
> and doesn't help encourage transition.
it doesn't exactly discourage transition either, and i don't see how
changing proc to hide/not hide stuff encourages it. at some point it
has to be a distribution issue, regardless of the transitioning scheme.
if a union could be made to work (and as above i'd like to know why it
couldn't, if only for my own education :-) it means you don't have to go
removing stuff later on.
> It would be reasonable to have a proc filesystem that could
> hide or disable half of the content -- either process files
> or the misc junk.
>
> Let's have a filesystem mounted as type "proc" hide everything
> but the process directories by default. You can still read
> /proc/cpuinfo, but you can't see it when you do "ls /proc".
> Let's have a filesystem mounted as type "kern" disable the
> process directories by default.
imho this violates the principle of least-surprise, although i suppose
if you're mounting the fs you're probably expecting it so its probably
ok.
curious,
j.
-- R N G G "Well, there it goes again... And we just sit I G G G here without opposable thumbs." -- gary larson - 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 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 21:00:17 EST