Re: taskfs and kernfs

2000-12-18 Thread Albert D. Cahalan
Alexander Viro writes: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Dave Zarzycki wrote: >> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: >> >>> However, kernfs is _not_ procfs \setminus procfs-proper. It's our current >>> /proc/sys. >> >> Okay. I didn't realize that's what you had in mind when you wrote >> "kernfs." Mind i

Re: taskfs and kernfs

2000-11-05 Thread Alexander Viro
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Dave Zarzycki wrote: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > However, kernfs is _not_ procfs \setminus procfs-proper. It's our current > > /proc/sys. > > Okay. I didn't realize that's what you had in mind when you wrote > "kernfs." Mind if I ask why you didn't ca

Re: taskfs and kernfs

2000-11-05 Thread Dave Zarzycki
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > However, kernfs is _not_ procfs \setminus procfs-proper. It's our current > /proc/sys. Okay. I didn't realize that's what you had in mind when you wrote "kernfs." Mind if I ask why you didn't call it "sysctlfs" or "sysfs?" In you earlier e-mail, you s

Re: taskfs and kernfs

2000-11-05 Thread Alexander Viro
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Dave Zarzycki wrote: > I got bored this evening and decided to learn more about the Linux kernel > by splitting out procfs into two separate file systems: > > taskfs which contains /proc/self and /proc/[1-9]* > kernfs which contains everything else that procfs provides. >