On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Alexander Viro writes:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Erez Zadok wrote:
> >
> > > Hey, we can make it yet another ioctl(2). Then we can trade a crapload of
> > > syscalls for a crapload of ioctls --- a time-honored Unix tradition... :-)
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Seriously, an open/read/.../close would work fine, but on what file? If
> > > it's something inside /proc, fine, but has the Linux community as a whole
> > > accepted that procfs is a *must* for any working system "or else"? If the
> > > file to open/read/close won't be in /proc, what type of file it'd be and how
> > > it'd get created?
> >
> > Depends. If we have per-process namespaces - procfs is the only way
> > to go, simply because there is no such thing as system-wide set of
> > mounts. However, that procfs will not have to contain anything but
> > per-process data + /proc/self. Another variant is a mechanism a-la
> > /dev/tty, but frankly, I would rather see /dev/tty being a symlink
> > to /proc/self/tty...
>
> Agreed. /dev/tty always struck me as a bit evil^Wmagic. At the very
> least, a symlink to /proc/self/tty would make it pretty damn clear
> even to a novice.
Unfortunately, unlike /proc/mounts, /dev/tty has to be avalaible before
mounting procfs. Alas ;-<
