Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:31:39 -0800 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I almost hate to suggest this... Message-ID: <199812221731.JAA15538@flamingo.McKusick.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Dec 1998 02:00:39 PST." <81864.914061639.1@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 02:00:39 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Subject: Re: I almost hate to suggest this... To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I almost hate to suggest this... In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 19 Dec 1998 01:55:09 PST." <199812190955.BAA07155@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 02:00:39 -0800 Message-ID: <81864.914061639@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 > When someone has time available, making a separate mount_ufs > and rewriting mount itself to always exec a sub-mount binary > would be even better. But as a poor-man's fix the above Hmmm. I always got the feeling that the original CSRG folk deliberately stuck "ufs mounting" into mount(8) so that one binary could be copied around easily for fixit purposes, ufs being the one fs that could be deemed somewhat in the "bootstrap" class and perhaps worthy of special treatment. Then again, maybe not, I'm just saying that this most obvious lack of orthogonality (not writing mount(8) as a minimal wrapper) may well have been deliberate. I've bcc'd somebody who might know the real story in any case. :) - Jordan The intent was to one day break ufs out of mount. If you look at the sources for mount, you will find mount.c and mount_ufs.c. I think that the day has certainly come to consider making the divide, but it should be done properly, not by creating a link. Properly means moving mount_ufs.c to its own directory and building and installing it in its own right. The mount program should have the code deleted that calls mount_ufs internally. The only reason it was not done earlier was that it was deemed easier to copy just one program around (mount) than two (mount and mount_ufs) when making changes to the way ufs was mounted. I think that those considerations have faded. Kirk McKusick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812221731.JAA15538>