Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:48:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:48:20 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:22485 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:48:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:48:03 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Dave Zarzycki cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: taskfs and kernfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 call it "sysctlfs" or "sysfs?" Check *BSD. > In you earlier e-mail, you suggested that sysctl(2) would use path_walk(). > Would that mean that your kernfs would have to be loaded into the kernel > and mounted for sysctl(2) to work? Or am I missing something obvious? Yes. No. Yes. It doesn't have to be mounted anywhere - we need only dentry tree and some struct vfsmount to use path_walk(). Said vfsmount doesn't have to be anywhere near the mount tree. As for the "loaded in the kernel" - at that point the source of fs-related part is ~12Kb and sysctl.c is seriously trimmed (sysctl tree traversal is gone). Moreover, it's going to shrink more when we go for pure dcache variant. IOW, there is no point in making it modular - no more than doing modular CONFIG_SYSCTL in the current setup. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/