On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:05:26PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > My unaswered reply to the first submission is at
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.kernel/messages/de9504fe5963ccd1,
> >0c05294c599b22b1,eab26a4ed3f8ff17?thread_id=16c905c7e28e7498&mode=thread&noh
> >eader=1&q=uml-export-getgid-for-hostfs#doc_eab26a4ed3f8ff17
> >
> > (sorry, couldn't find it on marc), it's been Cc'ed to the lists you sent
> > the patch to.
> Sorry, I wasn't clear... I read *that* answer, but it says "as mentioned in
> the discussion about ROOT_DEV", and I couldn't find it.
That'd be:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=110664428918937&w=2
> Also, I'd like to know whether there's a correct way to implement this (using
> something different than root_dev, for instance the init[1] root directory
> mount device). I understand that with the possibility for multiple mounts the
> "root device" is more difficult to know (and maybe this is the reason for
> which ROOT_DEV is bogus, is this?), but at least a check on the param
> "rootfstype=hostfs" could be done.
personally I think it's a bad misfeature by itself. If you absolutely
want it make it a mount option so it's explicit at least.
And yes, the only place where ROOT_DEV makes sense is in the early boot
process where the first filesystem in the first namespace is mounted, that's
why I want to get rid of the export to modules for it.
> Ok, this is nice. I'll repost the (updated) patch CC'ing Ingo Molnar (unless
> there's another Ingo).
Yupp, mingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
