Re: debugfs in the namespace

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:39:00AM +0100, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> 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.

Disadvantage:
 - it puts a non-process type thing into /proc which is what I am
   specifically trying to get away from doing.

Only process related things _should_ be in /proc.  Now if I can ever
fully achieve that goal in my lifetime is something that is left to be
seen...

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/