From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262322AbVGLD4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:56:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262328AbVGLD4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:56:37 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:44992 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262322AbVGLD4g (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:56:36 -0400 From: Tom Zanussi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17107.16181.300398.8599@tut.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:55:33 -0500 To: Greg KH Cc: Karim Yaghmour , Tom Zanussi , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, varap@us.ibm.com, richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com Subject: Re: Merging relayfs? In-Reply-To: <20050712032424.GA1742@kroah.com> References: <17107.6290.734560.231978@tut.ibm.com> <20050712030555.GA1487@kroah.com> <42D3331F.8020705@opersys.com> <20050712032424.GA1742@kroah.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under 21.4 (patch 15) "Security Through Obscurity" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg KH writes: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:03:59PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > > > Greg KH wrote: > > > What ever happened to exporting the relayfs file ops, and just using > > > debugfs as your controlling fs instead? As all of the possible users > > > fall under the "debug" type of kernel feature, it makes more sense to > > > confine users to that fs, right? > > > > Actually, like we discussed the last time this surfaced, there are far > > more users for relayfs than just debugging. > > Based on the proposed users of this fs, I don't see any. What ones are > you saying are not "debug" type operations? And yes, I consider LTT a > "debug" type operation :) > > The best part of this, is it gives distros and users a consistant place > to mount the fs, and to know where this kind of thing shows up in the fs > namespace. Makes sense, and I don't see a problem with getting rid of the fs part of relayfs and letting debugfs take over that role, if debugfs were there for all potential users. It doesn't sound like it would satisfy users like LTT and systemtap though, who expect to be available at all times even on production systems, which wouldn't be the case unless the distros always shipped with debugfs enabled. > > > What we settled on was having relayfs export its file ops so that > > indeed debugfs users could use it to log things in conjunction with > > debugfs. > > Last I looked, this was not possible. Has this changed in the latest > version? The file operations are all exported, but I haven't actually tried to use relayfs files in debugfs. Is there something more needed? Tom