In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander
Viro writes:
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > I see your point. However, that suggests that the naming of
> > /proc/mounts is wrong. Perhaps we should have a /proc/namespace that
> > shows all these VFS bindings, and separately a list of real mounts.
>
> What's "real"? /proc/mounts would better left as it was (funny replacement
> for /etc/mtab) and there should be something along the lines of
> /proc/namespace (hell knows, we might make it compatible with /proc/ns
> from new Plan 9). That something most definitely doesn't need to share the
> format with /proc/mounts...
On a related note, since we do have /proc/mounts, and assuming that procfs
is pretty much necessary nowadays, are we going to get rid of /etc/mtab and
completely move all getmntent info into the kernel? I never liked the fact
that people doing mounts (such as automounters) have to ensure that they
correctly maintain a separate text file in /etc.
If we want to go crazy, we can implement mntfs ala Solaris 8, which moved
the mnt info into the kernel, but allowed for "editing" /etc/mnttab which is
now a special f/s mounted on top of a single file.
Hmmm, maybe that's a question to the glibc folks. I guess as long as all
the necessary tools and libraries will use /proc/mounts if available, and
avoid using /etc/mtab, that'd be ok.
Erez.
