Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Aug 1998 00:35:01 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |