Messages in this thread | | | From | Shawn Leas <> | Subject | RE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) | Date | Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:06:59 -0500 |
| |
> 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/
| |