Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) | Date | Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:57:10 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
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/
| |