Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 25 Feb 2000 00:21:16 +0100 |
| |
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric W Biederman <ebiederm> writes:
Eric> Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch> writes: >> I second that - I always had the impression that if devfs ever >> went into the official kernel it was going to be as an option, >> leaving system functional without enabling it.
Eric> I never saw an argument for makeing the system non functional. Eric> I did see an argument for new ``virtual devices'' which don't Eric> have device nodes (so must either reside in procfs or devfs) Eric> residing in devfs.
Right now the system is pretty non functional if you do not have /proc. Then there was the argument that if you are willing to enable procfs you should be willing to enable devfs.
>> If devfs is going to be a mandatory I would like to see a >> statement about this from Linus.
Eric> Who do think is silently pushing devfs?
I didn't claim that there was a conspiracy, I was asking for clarification. The last couple of days there has been a bit of discussion over moving things to devfs.
Eric> Linus has argued that sysctl is bad (hardcoded magic numbers). Eric> Linus has argues that ioctl is bad (Not the UNIX way, all Eric> could/should go through read/write) Others have argued procfs is Eric> bad (you can't handle device permissions...). Richard Gooch Eric> argued devfs seems to handle these issues best... The next day Eric> devfs was in the development kernel.
Eric> But I do agree there is no need to rush deployment or change. Eric> However we are certainly moving in a devfs direction.
In the past devfs has always been advertised as an _option_ now you say that we _move_ in the direction of devfs .... move pretty much implies default.
Jes
- 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/
| |