Re: debugfs in the namespace

[Grzegorz Kulewski]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:45:31PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:18:43 -0800, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hm, what about /.debug ?  That's a compromise that I can live with (even
> > > less key strokes to get to...)
> >
> > No way, Jan is out of his mind, adding obfuscations like that. Anything
> > but that. I didn't even bother to reply, because it never occurred to me
> > that you'd fall for something so retarded.
>
> Bah, fine :)
>
> > Otherwise, /dbg sounds good.
>
> Ok, I can live with that.

I agree that anything like /.* is broken and strange... But this is only 
my little opinion. :-)

But why creating dir in /proc - like /proc/debug is bad? Its advantages:
- it does not pollute namespace,
- it can be created by kernel at startup even on systems where debugfs 
will not be used (why not?),
- /proc is mounted in all configurations and often it is the first thing 
that startscripts do,
- if somebody really needs to debug proc using debugfs he can always mount 
it as /debug temporaily.


Thanks,

Grzegorz Kulewski

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/