> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Yes. Unable to deal with the global root, but it's not hard to add. The
> > right solution being to add the full-fledged namespaces, though. Doable,
> > but will require some NFS cleanup beforehand.
>
> What do you mean by "full-fledged namespaces" ?
Plan 9 ones. I.e. namespace (how the trees are joined) is a
process attribute. clone() (rfork() in case of Plan 9) has a new flag -
whether to share a namespace. fork() *does* share it. Another part of
namespace being the bindings - think of VFS-level links (asymmetrical -
there is a real link and there are links to it, but not involving a
name-parsing in any form). Again, different processes may have different
bindings.
> Isn't the device file
> sufficient ?
For NFS?
> > It creates a pipe, writes signature there, forks, child marshalls the state
> > through the pipe, [...]
>
> Cool, just like LIB$SPAWN on VAX/VMS ;-)
>
> > parent does exec(),
>
> What does it exec ? exec?p "init" ? execl "/sbin/init" ? Whatever "init="
> said ?
/sbin/init. It can be configured, indeed, but I didn't want to bother with
that back then. It was written to allow clean libc and init upgrades...
-
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/