lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) )
Date
>	You DO realize that you are lowering the chances of getting devfs
>into the mainstream kernel by using this kind of an attitude and treating
>others in this fashion, don't you?

It's technical merit will decide, or methinks maybe Linux isn't as good as
I once thought.

> They aren't files in the sense that they are stored on non-volitile
>media. As in, in reality, they go away when you shut the machine down, and
>come back when the machine boots up. If you boot off of a floppy an OS
that
>understands the root system, you won't see those files.

They aren't files in terms of your definition, being "blocks of data
residing
on physical media, being presented in contiguous fashion via a named node
called a file", but in the purest sense, they are as much a *special* file
as anything.

>> Misinformation! Misinformation! Misinformation! Misinformation!

> /dev can be cleaned up using rm(1). devfs at one point used
tarballs
>to handle permissions, now it doesn't, it uses a configuration file, which
>makes it even more strange and un-filesystem like. I don't use a config
file
>to specify my permissions on my / partition.

No it didn't. It lets drivers decide, and you can chown/chmod/ln etc to your
heart's content, but persistence was handled by tar which worked beautifully
via a standard FILESYSTEM INTERFACE.

>> So you like it. So do it that way. Don't be an ASSHOLE and say just
because
>> you don't like it that it CANT be in the kernel.
> The same could be said about many things that would be bad to have
in
>the kernel.

The saga of device fs involves people who for no better reason than
emotional
stupidity reject a better idea, not technical fault. It seems you are
implying
the current devfs would be bad to have in the kernel. Cite your reasons.

>> You can, with userland, just like devfs. You could have it monitor for
new
>> devices, and either mount it somewhere and add it to /etc/fstab, or have
>> user configurable actions to perform for certain classes of
devices!!!!!!!

> So, what does devfs add then? If it doesn't add anything, then
there
>isn't much point in having it.

I was talking about extensions for devfsd, where, I SHOULD have said "when
devfsd gets awoken by a devfs namespace change, devfsd could..."

>His critiques are quite a bit more valid than yours.

Ha... (Not even deserving of two "ha"s)

>It would be rude to say what you're doing.

I tell it like it is.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.134 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site