From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3203694a344338d2aae59b328b9fe67a@vitanuova.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] A proposal regarding # in bind From: rog@vitanuova.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:04:01 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 70a3b2f6-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 rob: > Your proposal is interesting but doesn't solve the bootstrap problem. > How would /proto get mounted? You see, the thing about # names > is that they're really not in the name space, and that comes in handy > when booting or creating a name space from scratch, such as in > listen. Since a program can't name the proto driver, how does one > establish a connection to it? I'm sure there's a way; I just wonder > what your plan is. two possibilities spring to mind: a) there's still an escape from the namespace, but a smaller one: there could be one (and only one) device nameable in the '#' name space, the proto device. (whether one allows an attach spec is a matter of taste). that at least would solve some of the naming problems. b) have a special system call for attaching proto. martin: > One could have a /proto/ctl file to which commands could be sent to remove > (or even add?!) devices from the visibility of this, and inheriting, processes > (a sort of fine-grained NODEVS). this would require that the namespace served by the proto device was specific to a namespace group. how would the proto device know to serve the same namespace to a process that's just done an rfork(RFNAMEG)? you could make it so each attach to '#' (the proto device) gave you a new instance of that device, so: unmount /proto bind '#' /proto would allow changing of availability of devices in /proto without affecting anything else.