On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 11:36:12AM -0700, david parsons wrote:
> In article <linux.kernel.20000417124417.A813@sb.t-online.de>,
> Christoph Hellwig <chhellwig@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >I've thought a bit about some ideas to replaced devfs with a combination
> >of automount and many small virtual filesystems. The idea is the following:
>
> I'd say ick, because it seems like it's replacing a somewhat flawed
> (odd and very non-traditional-Unix naming scheme, issues with
> multiple mounts)
The naming scheme is very UNIX-like (besides the ide & scsi devs), look at sysV.
> kernel scheme with a somewhat more fragile and
> complicated automount arrangement.
You don't have to use automount. You can mount every single fs yourself.
But it's much simpler with autofs ...
> I'd think it would be somewhat better to patch devfs so that it can
> only be mounted once (as a quick fix to the technical issues that
> are now being mentioned; if there are other technical issues with
> the current devfs they'll become more visible when Al Viro isn't
> fretting quite so much over the multiple-mounts thing) and do a
> purely user-mode hack to devfsd to fake multiple mounts.
The problem is¸ that you can mount only the whole devfs on multiple mount point even eith the
patch. If you have multiple file system you are able to mount only a subset in the chroot()ed
jail. This is necessary if you want namespaces.
Christoph
-- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.- 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 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST