Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch said:
> > Horst von Brand wrote:
> > > I'd say go with the proposal of the fake root/cwd directory for kernel
> > > threads that don't need access to the filesystem (all of them, I
> > > guess). Cleanest way out, unless you allow them to live without root/cwd.
>
> > I agree with clean. The main problem here is to catch all threads/processes,
> > including the ones not (yet) in the mainstream kernel and those which people
> > haven't even written yet. I don't want something that breaks every once in a
> > while in subtle ways for some silly and apparently unrelated reason.
>
> As a (mostly) bystander, I find the idea of kernel internal threads
> rooted in the filesystem somewhat strange, to be honest. That's why
> I'd go for getting rid of that "feature".
>
Well, the reason for it is for orthogonality in the kernel; avoiding
special cases. I like the fake root/cwd idea, because it lets us create
the special case without breaking orthogonality.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:19 EST