Re: [PATCH] reorder major-0 devices (was Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*)

2011-04-04 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Apr 3 16:54, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 23:33 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Apr 1 14:57, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > > For the sake of clarity, I would reorder it a bit further to > > > make FH_PROC and friends to one side of major-0 and everything else to > > >

[PATCH] reorder major-0 devices (was Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*)

2011-04-03 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 23:33 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 1 14:57, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > For the sake of clarity, I would reorder it a bit further to > > make FH_PROC and friends to one side of major-0 and everything else to > > the other side: > > > > /* begin /proc directorie

Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*

2011-04-01 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Apr 1 14:57, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 12:05 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Chris, do you think there's anything speaking against rearranging this > > so that the FH_FS and FH_NETDRIVE definitions are separate from the > > stuff under /proc? Or, hang on, we should ch

Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*

2011-04-01 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 12:05 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > The definition of isproc_dev starts to get on my nerves. We have to > check for six distinct values now. I think we should really change > the definition. Here's what we have in devices.h right now: > > FH_PROC= FHDEV (0, 250),

Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*

2011-04-01 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Apr 1 11:34, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Chris, do you think there's anything speaking against rearranging this > >so that the FH_FS and FH_NETDRIVE definitions are separate from the > >stuff under /proc? Or, hang on, we shou

Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*

2011-04-01 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >Chris, do you think there's anything speaking against rearranging this >so that the FH_FS and FH_NETDRIVE definitions are separate from the >stuff under /proc? Or, hang on, we should change all PROC values, >along these lines: > >

Re: [PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*

2011-04-01 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Apr 1 04:30, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > These patches implement /proc/sysvipc/*, as found on Linux[1]: > > $ ls -l /proc > [...] > dr-xr-xr-x 2 Yaakov None 0 Apr 1 04:12 sysvipc/ > [...] > > $ ls -l /proc/sysvipc > total 0 > -r--r--r-- 1 Yaakov None 0 Apr 1 04:12 msg > -r-

[PATCH] implement /proc/sysvipc/*

2011-04-01 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
These patches implement /proc/sysvipc/*, as found on Linux[1]: $ ls -l /proc [...] dr-xr-xr-x 2 Yaakov None 0 Apr 1 04:12 sysvipc/ [...] $ ls -l /proc/sysvipc total 0 -r--r--r-- 1 Yaakov None 0 Apr 1 04:12 msg -r--r--r-- 1 Yaakov None 0 Apr 1 04:12 sem -r--r--r-- 1 Yaakov Non