jassi brar <jassi_singh_brar@yahoo.com> writes:Can you please expand a bit why you think losetup is that complicated and what the problem is with it? AFAIK you're essentially just moving a minimal version of losetup (with missing features like no offsets etc.) into the kernel and frankly I fail to see the beauty in that. Or rather if you start with losetup, why stop at mount, modprobe, ifconfig, mkfs, fsck, ls[1], ...? For me it seems more that most of the file system based command interfaces (/proc/mtrr comes to mind) are quite hard to use and I prefer a proper command line tool with a manpage and --help and a real parser any day. -Andi [1] I'm sure someone could come up with some scheme to do ls using sysfs and you could find someone on this list who said "cool" :) --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Borislav Petkov | 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found... |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
