Alexander Viro writes:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Erez Zadok wrote:
>
> > Hey, we can make it yet another ioctl(2). Then we can trade a crapload of
> > syscalls for a crapload of ioctls --- a time-honored Unix tradition... :-)
> > :-)
> >
> > Seriously, an open/read/.../close would work fine, but on what file? If
> > it's something inside /proc, fine, but has the Linux community as a whole
> > accepted that procfs is a *must* for any working system "or else"? If the
> > file to open/read/close won't be in /proc, what type of file it'd be and how
> > it'd get created?
>
> Depends. If we have per-process namespaces - procfs is the only way
> to go, simply because there is no such thing as system-wide set of
> mounts. However, that procfs will not have to contain anything but
> per-process data + /proc/self. Another variant is a mechanism a-la
> /dev/tty, but frankly, I would rather see /dev/tty being a symlink
> to /proc/self/tty...
Agreed. /dev/tty always struck me as a bit evil^Wmagic. At the very
least, a symlink to /proc/self/tty would make it pretty damn clear
even to a novice.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
