torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 08.06.02 in <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206081523410.11630-100000@home.transmeta.com>:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Peter Waechtler wrote:
> >
> > What about /proc/futex then?
>
> Why?
>
> Tell me _one_ advantage from having the thing exposed as a filename?
None, of course - the shell can't do the other futex ops, either. Futex
file handles mean you can implement select() on them, but that's about all
they have in common with files - there is certainly no read() or write()
operation here!
> > Give it an entry in the namespace, why not with sockets (unix and ip)
> > also?
>
> Perhaps because you cannot enumerate sockets and pipes? They don't _have_
> names before they are created. Same as futexes, btw.
Now *there* I disagree, at least for sockets. First of all, there's
absolutely no need to be able to enumerate unopened sockets to justify
putting them into the namespace - you can create them (in a special fs, of
course) at the moment they are opened. (As in fact is done, in /proc/<pid>/
fd/.) And second, you *can* read() and write() there.
However, I don't think that's all that important. What I'd rather see is
making the network devices into namespace nodes. The situation of eth0 and
friends, from a Unix perspective, is utterly unnatural.
MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:14 EST