Re: [PATCH] shm fs v2 against 2.3.41

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg (miquels@cistron.nl)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2000 - 09:17:30 EST


In article <cistron.qwwzotl3u8w.fsf@sap.com>,
Christoph Rohland <hans-christoph.rohland@sap.com> wrote:
>Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>> Why not use //shm for the path, or //proc/shm so that if the kernel will
>> ever honour the extra // namespace even no hacks are required to have
>> the shmfs mounted in every chroot environment?
>
>O.K. I will add the additional / to all shm pathes internally.
>
>I do not like the path //shm since it clutters the root dircetory
>further.

Ah I see. A Domain-OS like // root which is different from /.

In Domain-OS, a cd / brough you to the root dir of the current
UNIX file system, and cd // brough you to a "super-root" that
had:

//localhost "/" of local machine
//otherhost "/" of "otherhost" (domain-os type remote fs)

I think Richard here means that there should be a //proc and //shm
that are rooted at // but _not_ at / (and /proc should be a symlink
to //proc for backwards compatibility). This way, the root file
system is not cluttered up at all, but cleaned up. //proc and //shm
would be mounted automatically by the kernel.

Hmm, and this way changing the root filesystem would be trivial-

cd //
mv unix-root oldroot
mkdir unix-root
mount /dev/hda3 //unix-root

.. or something similar

It would take quite a bit of changes in VFS though, I think

Mike.

-- 
The From: and Reply-To: addresses are internal news2mail gateway addresses.
Reply to the list or to miquels@cistron.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)

- 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 Feb 07 2000 - 21:00:06 EST