Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:24:51 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Larger dev_t |
| |
Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > > devfs -- in the abstract -- really isn't that bad of an idea; after all, > > Devfs is from a desing point of view the duplication for the bad /proc > design for devices. If you need a good design for general device > handling with names - network interfaces are the thing too look at. > mount() should be more like a select()... accept()! >
And what on earth makes this better? I have always thought the socket interface to be hideously ugly and full of ad-hockery. Its abstractions for handle multiple address families by and large don't work, and it introduces new system calls left, right and center -- sometimes for good reasons, but please do tell me why I can't open() an AF_UNIX socket, but have to use a special system call called connect() instead.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |