Tue May 28 13:21:00 GMT 2002
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:19:48PM +0100, Chris January wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 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
>> 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.
More information about the Cygwin-developers