Greg KH wrote:
> The path/filename dictates how it is used, so putting relayfs type files
> in debugfs is just fine. debugfs allows any types of files to be there.
> New trees in / are not LSB compliant, hence the reason for writing
> securityfs to get rid of /selinux and other LSM filesystems that were
> starting to sprout up.
> But that's exactly what debugfs is for, to allow data to be dumped out
> of the kernel for different usages.
> Ok, have a better name for it? It's simple and easy to understand.
It also carries with it the stigma of "kernel debugging", which I just
don't see production system maintainers liking very much.
So tell you what, how about if we merged what's in debugfs into relayfs
instead? We'll still end up with one filesystem, but we'll have a more
inocuous name. After all, if debugfs is indeed for dumping data from the
kernel to user-space for different usages, then relaying is what it's
actually doing, right?
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || [email protected] || 1-866-677-4546
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]