From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262031AbULPXwV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:52:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262195AbULPXwV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:52:21 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:9434 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262031AbULPXwO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:52:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:51:47 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Grzegorz Kulewski Cc: Pete Zaitcev , Mike Waychison , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: debugfs in the namespace Message-ID: <20041216235147.GC11330@kroah.com> References: <20041216110002.3e0ddf52@lembas.zaitcev.lan> <20041216190835.GE5654@kroah.com> <41C20356.4010900@sun.com> <20041216221843.GA10172@kroah.com> <20041216144531.3a8d988c@lembas.zaitcev.lan> <20041216225323.GA10616@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:39:00AM +0100, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:45:31PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > >>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:18:43 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > >> > >>>Hm, what about /.debug ? That's a compromise that I can live with (even > >>>less key strokes to get to...) > >> > >>No way, Jan is out of his mind, adding obfuscations like that. Anything > >>but that. I didn't even bother to reply, because it never occurred to me > >>that you'd fall for something so retarded. > > > >Bah, fine :) > > > >>Otherwise, /dbg sounds good. > > > >Ok, I can live with that. > > I agree that anything like /.* is broken and strange... But this is only > my little opinion. :-) > > But why creating dir in /proc - like /proc/debug is bad? Its advantages: > - it does not pollute namespace, > - it can be created by kernel at startup even on systems where debugfs > will not be used (why not?), > - /proc is mounted in all configurations and often it is the first thing > that startscripts do, > - if somebody really needs to debug proc using debugfs he can always mount > it as /debug temporaily. Disadvantage: - it puts a non-process type thing into /proc which is what I am specifically trying to get away from doing. Only process related things _should_ be in /proc. Now if I can ever fully achieve that goal in my lifetime is something that is left to be seen... thanks, greg k-h