On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:31 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > What would be the point in another top-level tree for device > information? All devices you are exporting information for, are > already in the sysfs tree, right? Never did find NFS mounts/servers/superblocks or whatever constitutes a BDI for NFS in there. Same goes for all other networked filesystems for that matter. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: "Kay Sievers" <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Fengguang Wu <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: "Kay Sievers" <[email protected]>
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
- Prev by Date: Re: Serial ATA does not find partitions (Hitachi HD, new? ATI controller) where old SATA works
- Next by Date: [PATCH] Fallback to ipv4 if we try to add join IPv4 multicast group via ipv4-mapped address.
- Previous by thread: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Next by thread: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Index(es):
 |