udev /sys
I hope I am posting to correct maillist.
I saw udev and I saw that I have to mount sysfs to /sys or to some similar directory.
Is it possible to mount sysfs to some directory in /proc?
I don't want to have /sys directory created, it violates the standard...
Is there any empty directory in /proc where I can mount sysfs?
If I understand it right, sysfs is always compiled into kernel. And also ALL linux systems are mounting procfs to /proc. So why don't just add this sysfs as a /proc entry in the kernel? Hope you understand me...
Tomas
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:56:22PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
I hope I am posting to correct maillist.
I saw udev and I saw that I have to mount sysfs to /sys or to some similar directory.
Is it possible to mount sysfs to some directory in /proc?
Sure, libsysfs should pick it up just fine (unless you build udev with klibc, but that's my fault, I need to fix that up...)
Quoted 1 line
I don't want to have /sys directory created, it violates the standard...
What standard? And where in that standard?
Quoted 1 line
Is there any empty directory in /proc where I can mount sysfs?
Nope.
Quoted 1 line
If I understand it right, sysfs is always compiled into kernel.
Yes.
Quoted 1 line
And also ALL linux systems are mounting procfs to /proc.
Sure. But you don't _have_ to have procfs, it can be not selected in the kernel.
Quoted 1 line
So why don't just add this sysfs as a /proc entry in the kernel?
Because sysfs has nothing to do with procfs. They are two separate filesystems, doing different things.
So in short, just mount sysfs at /sys and everyone will be happy :)
thanks,
greg k-h
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
Quoted 1 line
So in short, just mount sysfs at /sys and everyone will be happy :)
everyone expect me :-)
I was talking about Filesystem Hierarchy standard, as described in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
I thought that sysfs and procfs are both for the same thing (you can see inside the kernel by using programs or even shell scripts), so I just thought sysfs could be a part of procfs, or procfs could offer for example /proc/sysfs directory which is empty everytime and allows users like me (who don't like /sys) to mount sysfs there :-)
Maybe you are asking _why?_, but I am asking _why not?_ :-)
Tomas
Quoted 4 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:03:53PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line
So in short, just mount sysfs at /sys and everyone will be happy :)
everyone expect me :-)
I was talking about Filesystem Hierarchy standard, as described in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
No, please read that document. It doesn't even require /proc :) So we are free to create /sys without invalidating the document.
Quoted 5 lines
I thought that sysfs and procfs are both for the same thing (you can see inside the kernel by using programs or even shell scripts), so I just thought sysfs could be a part of procfs, or procfs could offer for example
/proc/sysfsdirectory which is empty everytime and allows users like me (who don't like /sys) to mount sysfs there :-)
No, they are not the same. That is why they are different, and mounted in different places.
Quoted 1 line
Maybe you are asking _why?_, but I am asking
_whynot?_ :-)
Because they have nothing to do with each other. Yeah, they both show kernel information, but different information. Eventually almost everything that does not deal with proccess will move to sysfs, as procfs is not the place for them.
thanks,
greg k-h
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
ok, thank you very much for your explanation,
finaly I have to agree with you.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg KH" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: udev /sys
Quoted 14 lines · On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:03:53PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
So in short, just mount sysfs at /sys and everyone will be happy :)
everyone expect me :-)
I was talking about Filesystem Hierarchy standard, as described in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/No, please read that document. It doesn't even require /proc :) So we are free to create /sys without invalidating the document.
Quoted 3 lines
I thought that sysfs and procfs are both for the same thing (you can see inside the kernel by using programs or even shell scripts), so I just thought sysfs could be a part of procfs, or procfs could offer for
example
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
/proc/sysfsdirectory which is empty everytime and allows users like me
(who
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 1 line
don't like /sys) to mount sysfs there :-)
No, they are not the same. That is why they are different, and mounted in different places.
Quoted 1 line
Maybe you are asking _why?_, but I am asking
_whynot?_ :-)Because they have nothing to do with each other. Yeah, they both show kernel information, but different information. Eventually almost everything that does not deal with proccess will move to sysfs, as procfs is not the place for them.
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 9 lines
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel