Re: debugfs in the namespace

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:33:57AM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:08:35 -0800, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:00:02AM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > what is the canonic place to mount debugfs: /debug, /debugfs, or anything
> > > else? The reason I'm asking is that USBMon has to find it somewhere and
> > > I'd really hate to see it varying from distro to distro.
> > 
> > Hm, in my testing I've been putting it in /dbg, but I don't like vowels :)
> 
> Oh, that's right: usr and creat. How could I forget.
> 
> > Anyway, I don't really know.  /dev/debug/ ?  /proc/debug ?  /debug ?
> > 
> > What do people want?  I guess it's time to write up a LSB proposal :(
> 
> I use /debug but it's not too late to change. Fedora does not ship it yet,
> so I don't think we have an institutional opinion about it.
> 
> Personally, I'm against the doubles to prevent issues with the mounting
> order on boot, but that's rather weak. The /dev can be specially managed
> and I'm concerned with people running find(1) on it. The /proc sounds
> better, but mounting anything under /proc requires a kernel component
> to create a directory, does it not?

Yes it does, but debugfs could create the mount point, if people agree
that this is a good place to put it (like usbfs does.)

Personally, I don't want to put it there, but that's just because I hate
proc stuff :)

So, /debug sounds good to me.  Any objections?

thanks,

greg k-h