[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:0.072 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site