Tue May 28 13:34:00 GMT 2002
> >> > Could you subscribe to cygwin-developers so that we could discuss
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> introducing a shared memory incompatibility. I wish, in retrospect, we
> 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
> 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.
More information about the Cygwin-developers