From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 03:43:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 03:43:45 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:6045 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 03:43:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 03:43:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Kai Henningsen cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants In-Reply-To: <80x0jOtXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> 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 16 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote: > hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 15.05.01 in <3B01A044.F72BFDD1@transmeta.com>: > > > Personally, I would also like to see network devices manifest in the > > filesystem namespace like everything else. > > Yes. > > Can we have a meta-rule? > > *Every* by-name kernel interface should have a filesystem variant. > > That is, if there's a kernel interface where you give the kernel a string > to identify an in-kernel object, there should be some place in the file > system (after mounting any prerequisites) that will respond to a path > ending in that name. You'll get in trouble with that in exactly one case: filesystem types. No, it would make a lot of sense to have them as fs objects. For one thing, we could turn mount(2) into open appropriate fs type convince the sucker that you are allowed, tell which device you want, etc. open mountpoint mount(fs_fd, dir_fd) Would work like charm, especially since we could fit the network filesystems into the same scheme and get rid of the kludges a-la ncpfs mount sequence. There's only one sore spot: how'd you mount _that_ fs? ;-)