Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 May 2001 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT) | From | James Simmons <> | Subject | Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants |
| |
> You see, as soon as you want slightly more structured stuff (deeper than > one level) you need the dentry tree, yodda, yodda. IOW, you need a > filesystem anyway and it's easy to implement. Want me to do framebufferfs? > Would make a nice demo. No majors. No minors. No ioctls. Less code than > in current tree. ~3 days to implement.
Yes. I like to give this fbdevfs a try. Once tested I have no problem placing it into my kernel tree I have. I planned on reworking the fbdev layer anyways for 2.5.X. As Linus pointed out is the backwards compatiabilty. Maybe name it to something else. Since I like to see fbdev and drm merge we need a new name anyways. Later I can migrate DRI functionality into this filesystem. It would be a nice demo. It would be really cool if I could stream the framebuffer image over a network :-)
- 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/
| |