Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jun 1998 20:14:32 +0200 | From | ralf@uni-kobl ... | Subject | Re: kernel-user separation: autofs |
| |
On Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 10:49:11AM -0700, D.A. Harris wrote:
> This is likely another stupid question. But I've readed some of the debate > on kernel, user space separation, how it is a Good Thing. And then I see > things like autofs being included in the kernel, just on the surface at least, > that would seem to be inconsistent with kernel-user separation. No other > Unix system out there, that I know of, has included autofs/automount/amd stuff > into the kernel, and it's inclusion in Linux struck me as funny, even before > I saw the debate on this list. What benefit does Linux get in including > autofs? And is it not a violation of kernel-user separation?
There are significant problems and artefacts with implementing the automounter correctly only in userspace and only a kernel implementation can do these things right. The kernel-user separation principle are not violated by this - most of the code still is in a userspace daemon.
Ralf
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |