Subject: Re: kernel & libkvm [was IIci success]
To: Steve Allen <email@example.com>
From: David Leonard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/11/1996 09:04:23
> On Jan 10, 3:33am, der Mouse wrote:
> >This is the Nth time I've heard something like "This would be neat, but
> >since kernfs (or procfs) is optional, ...".
> >Perhaps it's time to admit that they offer significant useful
> >functionality and make them an if-you-don't-use-it-things-will-break
> >part of the system?
and Steven R. Allen - email@example.com writes
> SGI has done that, and it seems that every other week there's a complaint
> on sgi.admin about something broken. The answer usually is that someone's
> done a 'umount -a' and the solution is to run 'mntproc' to remount the
> /proc filesystem...
> I have nothing against it myself, but if we do go that route, prominent
> note needs to be made so the clue-impaired have a fighting chance.
how about this solution: have code that relies on /proc, and hack umount so
that -a will umount everything but /proc (or "required" fs's), and
preserve -a's old behaviour with a new -A option.
# umount -a
# umount -A
David Leonard Project Officer, DSTC
The University of Queensland firstname.lastname@example.org