Al Viro writes:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:23PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > Andi Kleen writes:
> > > Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >this subdir;
> > > > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
> > >
> > > That's always a good thing.
Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:23PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>> Andi Kleen writes:
>> > Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > >this subdir;
>> > > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
>> >
>> > That's always a good thing.
>> >
>> > >
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35:23PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Andi Kleen writes:
> > Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >this subdir;
> > > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
> >
> > That's always a good thing.
> >
> > > Note: update your initscr
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 13:39 +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Sysctl files/inodes now have their own readdir and lookup
> methods, so there is one step left in turning this into a
> separate filesystem.
>
> The benefits of this are:
>
> 1. this will allow to remove a fancy revalidation rules from
On Feb 15 2008 17:57, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>> >
>> >Doing it automatically is the only acceptable way, IMO.
>>
>> For time being only.
>>
>> The kernel (currently) only auto-mounts invisible filesystems.
> and /selinux with selinuxfs, it is automounted ... but it is visible fs
>
Sorry if I do not
On Feb 15 2008 08:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> >
>> >Doing it automatically is the only acceptable way, IMO.
>>
>> For time being only.
>>
>> The kernel (currently) only auto-mounts invisible filesystems.
>
>like /root, sysfs, futexfs, pipefs, anon_inodefs, bdev, devpts,
>hugetlbfs, inotifyfs ?
Y
On 2/15/08, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 15 2008 12:35, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> >Andi Kleen writes:
> > > Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > this subdir;
> > > > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
> > >
> > > That's always a good thing
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:44:35 +0100 (CET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 15 2008 12:35, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> >Andi Kleen writes:
> > > Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >this subdir;
> > > > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
> > >
> > > That's alwa
On Feb 15 2008 12:35, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>Andi Kleen writes:
> > Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >this subdir;
> > > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
> >
> > That's always a good thing.
> >
> > > Note: update your initscripts to mount sysctl filesy
Andi Kleen writes:
> Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >this subdir;
> > 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
>
> That's always a good thing.
>
> > Note: update your initscripts to mount sysctl filesystem
> > right after the proc is mounted in order not
Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>this subdir;
> 3. sysctl inodes are now smaller than the procfs ones.
That's always a good thing.
> Note: update your initscripts to mount sysctl filesystem
> right after the proc is mounted in order not to lose your
> /etc/sysctl.conf configurati
Sysctl files/inodes now have their own readdir and lookup
methods, so there is one step left in turning this into a
separate filesystem.
The benefits of this are:
1. this will allow to remove a fancy revalidation rules from
sysctl dentries (will be in a separate patch);
2. the same approach w
12 matches
Mail list logo
