Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: David Laight
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 12:04 pm

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:01:17AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:

It is a lot less of a hack than what went before.
The only other option would be an actual (working) union mount,
and that has much bigger problems - not to mention needing
process specific mount tables!

OTOH I do wish the 32bit/64bit compatibility had been done as part of
the '64bit' port - so that the 64bit userspace doesn't have to rename
anything from the 32bit version - giving you a userpace that can
(at least in theory) boot either a 32bit or 64bit kernel.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Holland, (Sun Jan 2, 2:52 am)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, matthew sporleder, (Sun Jan 2, 7:19 am)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Laight, (Sun Jan 2, 11:14 am)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Holland, (Sun Jan 2, 12:24 pm)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Laight, (Sun Jan 2, 12:46 pm)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Holland, (Sun Jan 2, 12:49 pm)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, Eduardo Horvath, (Sun Jan 2, 2:19 pm)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Holland, (Sun Jan 2, 2:57 pm)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, Masao Uebayashi, (Tue Jan 4, 8:01 am)
Re: semantics of TRYEMULROOT, David Laight, (Tue Jan 4, 12:04 pm)