lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)

Andrea Arcangeli writes:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Shawn Leas wrote:

>> Specifically, what is ugly about it? Is it intrinsic in nature, or
>> something fixable? Is the design flawed? Then how? Back up your
>
> I don' t know about the Theodore idea of ugly but I agree with him.

That is a personal opinion. I see the current /dev as ugly.
The /dev directory contains a namespace used to access kernel drivers,
not normal data. It is strongly tied to the kernel version.

I think you suffer from fear of the unknown.

> We would not need devfs at all if the kdev_t would be a 64 bit
> unsigned integer.

I can't imagine how one would manage even a billion device nodes,
which is what a 32-bit dev_t gives you. Clearly you will have to
create device nodes dynamically, just like what devfs does.

We don't _need_ virtual consoles. We don't _need_ a parallel port
driver in the kernel. We don't _need_ TCP/IP in the kernel.
All of these things can be done in userspace. For those that like
that kind of (IMHO disgusting) implementation, the HURD is available.

> Instead of reply me that with devfs the root device _can_ be mounted
> readonly and we _can_ boot with a root fs with no major/minor number
> support, please tell me that you need to use these features.

Your choice of security or vfat support.



-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.042 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site