Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:23:33 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: Merging relayfs? |
| |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:40:41AM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > Greg KH wrote: > > The path/filename dictates how it is used, so putting relayfs type files > > in debugfs is just fine. debugfs allows any types of files to be there. > ... > > New trees in / are not LSB compliant, hence the reason for writing > > securityfs to get rid of /selinux and other LSM filesystems that were > > starting to sprout up. > ... > > But that's exactly what debugfs is for, to allow data to be dumped out > > of the kernel for different usages. > ... > > Ok, have a better name for it? It's simple and easy to understand. > > It also carries with it the stigma of "kernel debugging", which I just > don't see production system maintainers liking very much.
But they like the name "dtrace" instead? (sorry, couldn't resist...)
Come on, they will never see the name "debugfs", right? Your tools will then have a common place to look for your ltt and other files, as you _know_ where it will be mounted in the fs namespace.
And you _are_ doing kernel debugging and tracing with ltt, what's wrong with admitting that?
> So tell you what, how about if we merged what's in debugfs into relayfs > instead? We'll still end up with one filesystem, but we'll have a more > inocuous name. After all, if debugfs is indeed for dumping data from the > kernel to user-space for different usages, then relaying is what it's > actually doing, right?
Sorry, but debugfs was there first, and people are already using it in the kernel tree :)
Anyway, good luck trying to get the distros to accept yet-another-fs-to-mount-somewhere, I know it was hard to get support for sysfs as it was...
greg k-h - 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/
| |