Subject: Re: mount*(8) linked as one binary ?
To: Matthew Orgass <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jaromír Dolecek <email@example.com>
Date: 10/28/2000 14:36:10
Matthew Orgass wrote:
> > > is still far from optimal. Far too much code is duplicated and mount
> > > still execs mount_foo even if it is the same binary.
Well, I don't see (m)any more code which could be shared between
individual mount_*/mount_*.c files.
The overhead of exec(2) call is minimal (even lower now that it
would execute the same file as the one running) and is IMHO worth
the flexibility - it's possible to replace individual /sbin/mount_FOO
with some other binary without surprises. It's not like mount(8)
is performance-critical tool.
So I think it's better to leave it that way.
> I don't know for sure that there are any now, although I imagine some of
> the web configuration packages do this. However I think the creation of
> these types of tools should be encouraged since they make the system
> considerably more friendly to casual users.
I think that admin utilities can just exec mount_FOO(8). IMHO no
mount_FOO(3) is really needed.
> While the mount code does not
> add a whole lot toward that goal, it would be easy enough to do whenever
> the larger structural changes that the mount utilities need take place.
If they need any structural changes (I don't think so, FWIW), let the
person who would once make the changes to decide what would be needed
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
@@@@ Wanna a real operating system ? Go and get NetBSD, damn! @@@@