[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation
    "Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:

    > And the third part is the the filesystem interface which
    > makes "/dev" appear, and maintaines persistance of ownership and modes
    > across reboots, etc.

    I'm unclear as to why persistence is a desired thing with USB peripherals,
    because with USB, persistence is not guaranteed.

    You make a good argument that devices need access control. But why should
    we stick to inode-based policy mechanisms? Why not something more

    It just seems awfully silly to me that we're applying 1970s device access
    and access control methods to 1990s (and later) devices. Isn't there a
    better paradigm for this? The "device is a file" concept has its
    advantages, but now I'm beginning to think it's more a hindrance than a
    help, since the devices (and therefore the device nodes) can no longer be
    depended upon to be persistent.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.049 / U:74.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site