Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:08:02 +0400 (MSD) | | Subject | Re: USB device allocation |
| |
In <19991008093800.A25741@wookie.chirp.com.au> Nathan Hand (nathanh@chirp.com.au) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 11:15:08AM -0700, david parsons wrote: >> In article <linux.kernel.19991007104127.C15982@wookie.chirp.com.au>, >> Nathan Hand <nathanh@chirp.com.au> wrote: >> >> >This is why I suggested losing the devfs FILESYSTEM but retaining what >> >is devfs's INTENTION. Use the existing devfsd to maintain nodes on the >> >disk. Most of the benefits are kept. Some problems are addressed. >> >> Removing the filesystem makes devfs completely useless.
> The /dev directory can still be "dynamic", the difference is that it's an > ext2 filesystem being updated from userspace, rather than a virtual devfs > filesystem being updated from kernelspace.
> Realistically it only loses two features that people might covet (special > behaviour on open() of non-existent nodes, ability to use a non-UNIX like > filesystem for your /). The majority of people lose nothing.
Main ability of devfs (to me) is ultimate solution for dev_t size: there are no need to allocate major and minor number for devices in some center.
> Notice that what I'm proposing here is exactly like the cardmgr daemon in > the PCMCIA package. With the introduction of PCMCIA into the kernel, it's > sensible to make ALL devices contact a cardmgr-alike daemmon. > ____
- 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/
|  |