[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Device naming???
    > There are people on this list who have very strong objection to the devfs
    > patch, enough such that there is little chance of it making it's way into
    > the kernel. If you read the archive you'll see both the pro and con
    > arguments for this patch.

    Really? It seems that the direction Linus is heading with
    kernel/resource.c would either make devfs a natural addition to the
    kernel, or permit something _like_ devfs into the kernel.

    At one point in the devfs debate Alan Cox said something along the
    lines of (forgive my lack of precision here): "I like devfs, but I'm
    note sure it's the right solution to the problem".

    <dig through archive>

    Actually he said:

    > devfs is an extremely clean solution to a problem. Im just not 100%
    > sure its the right solution or the right problem.
    > Its certainly in the right ballpark

    I'm suggesting that the reorg of resources will permit something like
    devfs to make it, ie it provides the structure that should marry to
    devfs nicely.

    Or I could be all wet.


    Richard Dynes

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.020 / U:5.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site