Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:21:44 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: USB device allocation |
| |
In <Pine.A41.4.10.9910060106240.22786-100000@pund.acc.umu.se> David Weinehall (tao@acc.umu.se) wrote: > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> David Weinehall wrote: >> > >> > > That is one way of doing it; IMO a very good way because it lets you >> > > have policy in user space. >> > >> > Oh? And what kind of image of how devfs does things do you have then? >> > >> > This is how devfs works. The kernel part of devfs informs devfsd of the >> > changes (what devices need to be created/removed), and devfsd nicely >> > carries out its chores. User-space policy and persistent access-rights are >> > there for you. >> > >> >> ... in which case you don't need devfs at all.
> And how will you inform the daemon that new devices need to be > created/removed?
What's more: sometimes there are just NO infrastructure in place to inform daemon. Except of human intervention. And since I need to access (say) /dev/printer/0 to print sometihing anyway why it can not be a trigger ? With devfs it IS a trigger. Without devfs it CAN NOT be a trigger.
- 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/
| |