Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:00:55 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: UUIDs (and devfs and major/minor numbers) |
| |
Paul Jakma wrote: > > > With devfsd, I have a very nice way of implementing persistence. I > can > > support the existing semantics, where a sysadmin goes in and manually > > changes things, and I already support a more powerful scheme where > > groups of device entries are "saved". > > > > Regards, > > > > Richard.... > > In other words, you can implement what traditional filesystems can do. > We know that. It also means devfs is superfluous. You might as well > have a devmgr process with no need for a devfs at all. > > -hpa > > oh come on.... > > a devmgr without kernel interaction would be a complicated, gross hack. > How would you handle dynamic devices with your devmgr? poll every second > for new devices? and what do you poll? Your devmgr has to get the > information about new/expired devices from somewhere - so the kernel has > to export this information somewhere. Why not in the most logical way: > directly to /dev?
Trivially: it's the module installer's job. (Actually, dynamic devices are bad, this one of the major reasons why.)
-hpa
-- "The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions." -- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp
- 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/
| |