Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:09:30 +0300 (EEST) | | From | Sergey Kubushin <> | | Subject | Re: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation) |
| |
On 12 Oct 1999, david parsons wrote:
> In article <linux.kernel.199910121901.NAA26203@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>, > Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> wrote: > >david parsons writes: > > >> Richard, if I produced an emasculated version of the patch that only > >> populates a flat filesystem with major and minor numbers required, > >> would you accept it? > > >I doubt it. I can't see the point. I'm not willing to sacrifice useful > >features for the sake of satisfying some people's idealogical vision > >of purity. I've spent more time than I should have explaining why I > >think that vision is flawed. > > I can certainly understand that, but I'm an impatient sort and I > really really REALLY want to have a devfs in the kernel; a flat > filesystem[1] isn't any worse than 100-e% of the current Linux > systems are, and if it would put a devfs into the mainline kernel > that would still be better than the traditional way of doing things.
It'd be much better if devfs entered the mainstream kernel in it's full shine and glory. The circumsized version is a very bad kludge - if Richard would allow it to the kernel we would have _NEVER_ had the full-blown devfs. There will be helluva lotta reasoning that it's ok as it is, that one can use some another horrible kludge to get the desired behaviour with existing implementation, that 2.9.x is featurefreezed and may be we'll make some changes in 3.7.x etc. etc.... The ideological purity is a good thing, but unfortunately it's of no use most of the time. It's just like islamic fundamentalism... The devfs is good, it does really work, it's mature enough to be used on the vast majority of Linux servers and workstations (we're actually one of the biggest ISP in Ukraine and we do use it all over our wide network of miscellaneous servers and workstations - works like a charm, we did not have _ANY_ devfs-related problems so far. Some of our servers are already up for 6+ months...)
So we want it all :)) It's much better to have the real thing as a kernel patch (very well maintained so far) then a circumsized down the very root invalid into the mainstream kernel...
I do really hope that Richard has enough guts to not trait the really good thing for the doubtful honour of having his name mentioned in the kernel's Hall of Fame...
=========================================================================== Sergey Kubushin aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately. e-mail: ksi@ksi-linux.com SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. ===========================================================================
- 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/
|  |