Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:29:56 -0500 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode |
| |
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:11:21 +1100 From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
I'd advocate we move from a "tough, use procfs" attitude to a "tough, use devfs" attitude. If you don't want to have devfs in your kernel, you wouldn't want procfs either (if being consistent). After all, devfs doesn't *have* to be mounted over /dev.
You know, it wasn't that long ago that you said that using devfs should be a choice, and not something that would ever be forced. Now you're saying "tough, use devfs". I guess your earlier statements were just made to pursuade people to accept it into the kernel, and now you're changing your mind?
As far as devfs not having to be mounted over /dev, if we *are* going to move to a world where for certain functionality devfs is mandatory, it would be useful to standardize using a standard pathname for accessing devfs --- say, /devfs. If you do want to mount devfs over /dev, then /devfs can be a symlink to /dev. If you don't want to mount devfs over /dev, then devfs can just be mounted on top of /devfs.
This way, application programs that need fixed, compiled-in paths can just use /devfs and be guaranteed to work on both kinds of systems.
- Ted
- 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/
| |