Re: about mounting /dev/pts
On 2004.03.24 09:52, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 24, Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like udev needs to run before everything else if it uses
> > a ramfs as /dev .. can't you just say "if you want to use udev
> > with a ram-based filesystem, run udev from initrd" ? I think
> > that's what the general idea was, anyway ..
> The general idea was to use initramfs, but I doubt it will be ready
> before 2.7.x.
>
> > Either that or udev should run at S01udev. Hmm, space is getting
> > crowded there at the lower sequence numbers. Should I move
> > S02mountvirtfs to S04, perhaps, so you can put udev at S03 or S02 ?
> No. The problem is that udev needs as well /proc and /sbin, this is why
> I asked you to run mountvirtfs before it.
> If breaking mountvirtfs in two scripts is hard then it will be probably
> easier to simply unmount and remount /dev/pts from the udev init script.
That is indeed an option, and would work as a stop-gap measure.
Another option is to move udev to run before mountvirtfs, and let it
mount /proc itself. mountvirtfs can handle that just fine, it only
mounts /proc if it's not mounted yet. Same for /sys, etc.
So the options are:
1. udev runs after mountvirtfs, umounts /dev/pts, mounts a new /dev,
remounts /dev/pts. If you use " umount -l" it won't even matter
if /dev/pts is busy, and since there is only one instance of devpts
anyway you'll remount the same instance. It will just work.
2. udev runs before mountvirtfs, mounts /proc itself (doesn't unmount it).
In this case it'd be better to move mountvirtfs to S03 instead of S02
so that udev can run at S02.
I don't really care one way or the other.. well, being lazy and all, I
think I prefer (1) since I won't have to do anything then ;)
Mike.--
Netu, v qba'g yvxr gur cynvagrkg :)
Reply to: