From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 143ZD0-0004JG-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2000 07:41:46 +0000 Received: from mrserver.wte.net ([206.98.206.71] helo=mrserver.cachier.com) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 143ZCy-0004JA-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2000 07:41:44 +0000 From: Levi Khatskevitch Reply-To: LKhatskevitch@cachier.com To: Tripp Lilley Subject: Re: nftl/DoC Mill. root fs question Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 02:33:00 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: mtd@infradead.org, linuxbios@lanl.gov References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120602385104.02531@mrserver> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: On Wed, 06 Dec 2000, Tripp Lilley wrote: > While researching this whole /etc/mtab vs. /proc/mounts issue, I came > across the following post: > > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.3/0243.html > > which points out some of the "dangers" in using /proc/mounts, and > specifically mentions the /dev/root issue. Not sure if it's 100% > applicable, but it might be a good starting point :) > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 tyson@rwii.com wrote: > Thanks, I'm not yet sure how applicable this is because I'm using busybox mount that as I have discovered recently doesn't keep mtab at all. It always looks into /proc/mounts. Since proce/mounts reports /dev/root mounteds on / too I'm confused, mounting root fs rw doesn't change anything but if I'm using /dev/ram0 as root /proc/mounts and mount both report it correctly. At this point I'm at loss to explain this. - Levi -- Levi Khatskevitch CTO Cachier, Corp. 575 Grand St., Suite E306 New York, NY 10002 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org