Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:53:35 +0200 (MET_DST) | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: USB device allocation |
| |
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Brian Swetland wrote: > > > > [David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>] > > > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > > > What about some spare entries for USB monitors, speakers, CDrecorders ? > > > > > > > > > > The desperate need for devfs becomes all more clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, the need is for a decent-sized dev_t. > > > > > > With a decently sized dev_t we will still have the problem with a > > > cluttered /dev directory. With devfs we won't. And if you still want your > > > standard, cluttered, /dev directory, you can still have it with devfs. So > > > I can't really understand you being so negative in regard to devfs. > > > > Tradition! Big 'ol arrays and clutter are obviously better than a > > dynamic solution. Hot-plugable devices are a myth made up by people > > who don't realize that all hardware can be detected when you compile > > your kernel the way it should be. Config files are for people too dumb > > to recompile things when configurations change. That's sarcasm, btw. > > And one should cure the disease (too short dev_t) instead of the > symptoms > (inventing devfs).
Using devfs isn't curing the symptoms; it's just curing another disease. Sure, we need a larger dev_t, but devfs is something we sooner or later need too. And I for one vote for sooner...
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
- 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/
| |