Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:45:06 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | RE: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation |
| |
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.3.95.991008110717.897A-100000@chaos.analogic.com> Richard B. Johnson (root@chaos.analogic.com) wrote: > RJ> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote: > >> > >> Devfs DO NOT need major/minor system. It uses major/minor system for existing > >> devices to simplify conversation but it's not requirement. > > RJ> What? The only reason for any of the stuff in the /dev directory is > RJ> to associate a major/minor number with a file-descriptor. This happens > RJ> during open(). This is Unix and that's the way Unix works. the choice > RJ> of putting such "devices" in the "/dev" directory is policy. They > RJ> could be anywhere. > > Why it's so important ?
Learn. This place is not exactly UNIX 101, you know...
> RJ> Any 'devfs' cannot violate the Unix policy or you don't have Unix. > > And what if I'm not want Unix ?
Than don't use it, damnitall! WTF are you doing on l-k in that case, may I ask you? devfs may be good/bad/whatever, but _why_ _the_ _green_ _bloody_ _fsck_ is it discussed on l-k by people who apparently never cared to look at the code it should interact with? It's not a democracy and vox co^H^Hpopuli doesn't work here (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Could we _please_ stop this bogosity? Take care to read the kernel source if you want to produce arguments for inclusion of the thing into system. It is a prerequisite. And let Richard speak if/when he wants to do it. At least he _did_ care to RTFS. Sheesh...
- 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/
| |