lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.319 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site