On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:05:26PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > > My unaswered reply to the first submission is at > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.kernel/messages/de9504fe5963ccd1, > >0c05294c599b22b1,eab26a4ed3f8ff17?thread_id=16c905c7e28e7498&mode=thread&noh > >eader=1&q=uml-export-getgid-for-hostfs#doc_eab26a4ed3f8ff17 > > > > (sorry, couldn't find it on marc), it's been Cc'ed to the lists you sent > > the patch to. > Sorry, I wasn't clear... I read *that* answer, but it says "as mentioned in > the discussion about ROOT_DEV", and I couldn't find it.
That'd be: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=110664428918937&w=2 > Also, I'd like to know whether there's a correct way to implement this (using > something different than root_dev, for instance the init[1] root directory > mount device). I understand that with the possibility for multiple mounts the > "root device" is more difficult to know (and maybe this is the reason for > which ROOT_DEV is bogus, is this?), but at least a check on the param > "rootfstype=hostfs" could be done. personally I think it's a bad misfeature by itself. If you absolutely want it make it a mount option so it's explicit at least. And yes, the only place where ROOT_DEV makes sense is in the early boot process where the first filesystem in the first namespace is mounted, that's why I want to get rid of the export to modules for it. > Ok, this is nice. I'll repost the (updated) patch CC'ing Ingo Molnar (unless > there's another Ingo). Yupp, mingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
