lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 04:04:14PM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> danielt@digi.com said:

> > 90% of the objections to having devfs in the kernel
> > are easily solved with "well don't use it then".
>
> Wrong. Having devfs in the kernel has an impact on _all_ devices, if they
> use it or not. Giving the option has even more impact here than just
> forcing it one way or the other.

OK, I've not actually looked at devfs yet, but: would it be possible to come
up with a set of mods to the current device drivers that could then be used
by devfs *or* any other future solution to /dev-related problems? And that
still worked with a traditional /dev without significant overhead or impact?

The device driver changes could then go into the mainstream kernel, and the
various /dev options could be distributed separately while they are evaluated.
Whatever "wins" (i.e. persuades Linus) could then go in to his tree.

--
"I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. There are
better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making use of
one's contributions to computer science." -- Donald E. Knuth, TAoCP vol 3

-
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:0.203 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site