Re: [PATCH] shm fs v2 against 2.3.41

From: Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2000 - 19:13:28 EST


Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> 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.

If the VFS were going to be changed so radically, I'd much rather "//"
were reserved for something useful like URLs, not the rather boring
//proc and //shm, which are quite comfortable in /proc and /proc/shm now.

just MO,
-- Jamie

-
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 - 21:00:07 EST