Re: debugfs in the namespace [u]

[Martin Schlemmer [c]]

On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 14:18 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:51:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> > I thought debugfs was meant for just debugging.  As there is no plans
> > for standardizing its namespace, why are we allowing ourselves to rely
> > on it being mounted at all?
> > 
> > AFAICT, there should be no excuse for userspace to actually rely on any
> > of the data within debugfs.  Otherwise we end up with yet another
> > filesystem whose role is: Chaotic hodgepodge of magic files created by
> > drivers that couldn't bother to be well-organized.
> > 
> > Please, let's not make debugfs part of userspace.  Keep it for what it
> > is, debugging purposes only.
> 
> I'm not saying we will ever make it "required" at all.  It's just that
> people are going to want to mount the thing, and are already asking me
> where we should mount it at.  If you pick a different place than me,
> fine, I don't mind.  It's the user who is asked to report some info that
> happens to be in debugfs that is going to want to know where to put it,
> as they have no idea even what it is.  Distros are going to ask what to
> put in their fstabs for where to mount the thing too.
> 
> So, let's pick a place and be done with it.
> 
> I like /dbg (3 characters total to get to, which is shorter than /debug
> which takes at least 4, 3 chars and a tab).  Pete likes /debug.  Jan
> Engelhardt want to hide the thing from people at /.debugfs.
> 
> Hm, what about /.debug ?  That's a compromise that I can live with (even
> less key strokes to get to...)
> 
> Or is their some restriction on putting hidden directories in the root
> filesystem as specified by the LSB?
> 
> So, /.debug sound acceptable?
> 

Prob silly, but what about /sys/dbg ?  Out of sight ...


-- 
Martin Schlemmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part