Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:42:25 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Location of shmfs; devfs automagics |
| |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > if (open("/dev/console", O_RDWR, 0) < 0) > > > printk("Warning: unable to open an initial console.\n"); > > > > Also, perhaps devfs could mount on /dev even if /dev is missing? > > And perhaps it should format your hard disk, download a distribution and > configure it if / isnt mountable ?
OK, since I did a lot of wading through the mount-related code lately, let me add a couple of things: a) fixed *WHAM* pathnames *WHAM* are fucking evil *WHAM* b) there is no real need to mount shmfs to get the things working. Provable: I've done that. c) the whole concept of monolytic devfs is a bullshit, excusable only because we lack union-mounts. As soon as they are in the devfs will be heading out. There _is_ a point in a driver providing a tiny filesystem with right set of devices and user union-mounting it on /dev, /dev/tape, /dev/hamster/duct/tape, whatever. But 'register a set of stuff into the devfs' thing is a bad design. d) funny as it sounds, in-kernel template for root is not a bad thing. Provided the presense of union-mount, again. It would make for more regular code in initialization sequence. e) yes, Richard, we all know that you've got your own vision of the way things should be done. That's OK, just don't inflict it on those who don't want it, will you? Oh, and search on the net for "Mr. Bill's DEC-20". Down, not across Al
- 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/
| |