From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Norbert Sendetzky Subject: Re: [RFC] per-driver filesystems made easy Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:47:54 -0100 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200205121747.54744.norbert@linuxnetworks.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Alexander Viro In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sunday 12 May 2002 14:01, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Sun, 12 May 2002, Norbert Sendetzky wrote: > > I am wondering if this information isn't something that should be > > located in a subdirectory of /proc, shouldn't it? And perhaps it > > No, it shouldn't. Basically, it's an example of doing things > without touching dungpiles - devfs, procfs and ioctls. Aside of > the fact that procfs is extremely ugly, it's bloated, choke-full of > races and has zero granularity - it's all or nothing. It's also a > shared namespace - and we all know how well does that idea work; > just look at NetSol... Was there already any discussion about breaking procfs into serveral independent pieces like the one you have done and rebuilding the procfs tree by mounting these pieces unter /proc? Perhaps this could solve most of problems of procfs has today and will provide all things you want (small independent subtrees, granularity, multiple namespaces). Norbert