[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: debugfs in the namespace
    On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:33:57AM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:08:35 -0800, Greg KH <> wrote:
    > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:00:02AM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
    > > > what is the canonic place to mount debugfs: /debug, /debugfs, or anything
    > > > else? The reason I'm asking is that USBMon has to find it somewhere and
    > > > I'd really hate to see it varying from distro to distro.
    > >
    > > Hm, in my testing I've been putting it in /dbg, but I don't like vowels :)
    > Oh, that's right: usr and creat. How could I forget.
    > > Anyway, I don't really know. /dev/debug/ ? /proc/debug ? /debug ?
    > >
    > > What do people want? I guess it's time to write up a LSB proposal :(
    > I use /debug but it's not too late to change. Fedora does not ship it yet,
    > so I don't think we have an institutional opinion about it.
    > Personally, I'm against the doubles to prevent issues with the mounting
    > order on boot, but that's rather weak. The /dev can be specially managed
    > and I'm concerned with people running find(1) on it. The /proc sounds
    > better, but mounting anything under /proc requires a kernel component
    > to create a directory, does it not?

    Yes it does, but debugfs could create the mount point, if people agree
    that this is a good place to put it (like usbfs does.)

    Personally, I don't want to put it there, but that's just because I hate
    proc stuff :)

    So, /debug sounds good to me. Any objections?


    greg k-h
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.021 / U:1.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site