Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Nov 2001 22:49:51 +1100 | From | john slee <> | Subject | Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc |
| |
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:14:32AM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > No, not a union mount. We didn't have that last time I looked,
i was under the impression al viro had them planned for 2.5... hopefully i'm right as i find them rather useful at times under other systems (openbsd)
> and I have some doubts that it would work all that well. Even
why not? the two namespaces should not clash... and i really hope that there aren't any tools out there referencing proc via inode num. what problems do you see?
> if it does work, it doesn't provide drop-in kernel compatibility > and doesn't help encourage transition.
it doesn't exactly discourage transition either, and i don't see how changing proc to hide/not hide stuff encourages it. at some point it has to be a distribution issue, regardless of the transitioning scheme.
if a union could be made to work (and as above i'd like to know why it couldn't, if only for my own education :-) it means you don't have to go removing stuff later on.
> It would be reasonable to have a proc filesystem that could > hide or disable half of the content -- either process files > or the misc junk. > > Let's have a filesystem mounted as type "proc" hide everything > but the process directories by default. You can still read > /proc/cpuinfo, but you can't see it when you do "ls /proc". > Let's have a filesystem mounted as type "kern" disable the > process directories by default.
imho this violates the principle of least-surprise, although i suppose if you're mounting the fs you're probably expecting it so its probably ok.
curious,
j.
-- R N G G "Well, there it goes again... And we just sit I G G G here without opposable thumbs." -- gary larson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |