Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:05:10 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers |
| |
H. Peter Anvin writes: > Richard Gooch wrote: > > > > But on the issue of whether devfs is a good idea or not, I strongly > > disagree. Let's face it, the magic devices numbers scheme is a hack > > which dates back decades, and probably would never have happened if a > > decent VFS interface was implemented right from the start. There must > > be a reason our good friend Ken added a devfs in Plan 9. > > > > This business of maintaining two, three or four separate databases > > (the kernel code, devices.txt, /dev and MAKEDEV) which need to be > > consistent is really silly. Duplication of data has always been a bad > > idea, because there inevitably develop inconsistencies. > > And this ignores all the things that are so much easier, faster and > > more efficient with devfs as well as things that are impossible > > without it. > > > > I know that devfs is a new way of doing things that breaks with old > > Unix tradition. But breaking with tradition is not always a bad > > thing. Otherwise we'd still be swinging from the trees. > > devfs is based on a completely bogus idea: that a device driver is a > kernel thing. *THIS* is the supreme fallacy, and a major pitfall for > Linux today. devfs in fact helps perpetualize this problem, in large > part by moving policy into the kernel that has no business being there. > It's the DOS way of fixing things -- quick, dirty, and extremely > short-sighted.
Oh, come on! Of course a device driver belongs in the kernel. We're not a microkernel, you know.
Anyway, you talk about this major pitfall which is a problem. *What* is this "problem"?
Regards,
Richard....
- 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/
| |