On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> However, kernfs is _not_ procfs \setminus procfs-proper. It's our current
> /proc/sys.
Okay. I didn't realize that's what you had in mind when you wrote
"kernfs." Mind if I ask why you didn't call it "sysctlfs" or "sysfs?"
In you earlier e-mail, you suggested that sysctl(2) would use path_walk().
Would that mean that your kernfs would have to be loaded into the kernel
and mounted for sysctl(2) to work? Or am I missing something obvious?
davez
--
Dave Zarzycki
http://thor.sbay.org/~dave/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
