Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
X-WM-Posted-At: avacado.atomice.net; Tue, 28 May 02 21:37:39 +0100
Message-ID: <002001c20687$81f93620$0100a8c0@advent02>
From: "Chris January" <chris AT atomice DOT net>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <001701c201aa$9cca0ab0$0100a8c0 AT advent02> <20020523232638 DOT GA31888 AT redhat DOT com> <00ff01c202b8$ad484d70$0100a8c0 AT advent02> <000901c20685$03dd5890$0100a8c0 AT advent02> <20020528202140 DOT GA5277 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: /dev patch
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:37:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

> >> > Could you subscribe to cygwin-developers so that we could discuss
this
> >> > patch?  I think we need to lay more groundwork before we do something
> >> > like this and cygwin-patches is not the place for discussing this.
> >> >
> >> > cgf
> >> I have no qualms about whether this patch is committed or not, as it
was
> >> simply an exercise prompted by a posting on the cygwin mailing list.
> >However
> >> I do feel that taking the /proc prefix from the mount table is a better
> >> solution than hard-coding it. If this patch is not going to be
committed
> >in
> >> time for 1.3.11, I will make sure that this part of the patch is
> >> incorporated in my second /proc patch.
> >> As for any groundwork you wish to lay, I am always open to discussion.
> >Chris, can you tell me what's going to happen to this patch so I know
> >whether to make the next /proc patch incremental to this one or not.
>
> I am not comfortable with the mount table changes since changing that
means
> introducing a shared memory incompatibility.  I wish, in retrospect, we
hadn't
> made the cygdrive stuff "special" in any way but treated it more like
> linux's shm mount.  I also wish we'd added -o and -t switches to mount to
handle
> stuff like this so we could do things like:
>
> mount -o system -t cygdrive none /mycyg
> mount -o system -t devfs none /dev
>
> So, I think some form of your /dev will go in but we need to do some mount
> work first.  That means that future proc patches work should be against
> cvs.  We can add /dev and mount cleanups to 1.3.12.

Ok, thanks for replying so quickly.

Chris