lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) )
Date
From
Shawn Leas <SLEAS@videoupdate.com> said:
> Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon@sasami.anime.net] said:
> > Horst von Brand said:
> >> If the CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly implemented, it can screw up other
> >> code, even when disabled.

> >Check the devfs *code*, Horst. Then tell us CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly
> >implemented. Please don't play these silly theoretical semantics games.

It was claimed that something that was CONFIG_XXX=N could never affect
excisting code. Furthermore, a newbie would be able to fix the kernel in
half an hour. Well, the newbie might screw up, or the CONFIG_XXX could be
implemented wrong, or there might me subtle interactions that get broken by
the included/excluded code.

> I guess he thinks that since there is (having never looked at devfs) some
> chance in his perspective that devfs might be poorly coded, that it's
> fundamentally bad. Nevermind the years of testing and code audit by
> other kernel hackers, including Ext2-Ted...

Never said anything like that. I have the highest respect for Richard
Gooch, I just think the _concept_ of a dynamic /dev is mistaken. BTW, there
has been some heavy criticism on the code too here.
--
Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.042 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site