On 13 Apr 2000, david parsons wrote:
> In article <linux.kernel.Pine.GSO.4.10.10004130904370.11301-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>,
> Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>
> >BTW, _what_ was that wrong with using autofs for that instead of
> >reinventing the wheel?
>
> Is your patch availible? If you've made devfs smaller and not
> eviscerated it in the process, I'm sure it would be something that
> all the responsible parties would like to see.
>
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ inquiring minds, doncha know.
> \/
Inquiring minds are welcome to wait until
a) last shit will be fixed in "alternative roots" (/usr/gnuemul/*
wart) and their interaction with chroot(), set_personality() and shared
roots (CLONE_FS)
b) walk_* stuff will be completed (read: __emul_lookup_dentry()
gone, which will allow to clean the interface up).
c) minor stuff a-la /proc/swaps turned to new infrastructure
(easy, but requires (b))
d) new fs/super.c put in place, along with cleanup of autofs*.
e) cache for vfsmounts put in place _and_ tweaked for decent
performance.
f) union-mount added.
BTW, it's a _chain_. As in "step n+1 requires step n being completed". And
yes, most of that (as a monolitic patch) was announced on fsdevel. The other
thing being, there were (really needed) changes of lookup_dentry()/walk_name()
interface.
Until it will be finished inquiring minds are welcome to sod off.
Dependencies, doncha know...
-
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 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST