Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:09:02 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface |
| |
On 9 Jun 2002, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > However, I don't think that's all that important. What I'd rather see is > making the network devices into namespace nodes. The situation of eth0 and > friends, from a Unix perspective, is utterly unnatural.
But what would you _do_ with them? What would be the advantage as compared to the current situation?
Now, to configure a device, you get a fd to the device the same way you get a fd _anyway_ - with "socket()".
And anybody who says that "socket()" is utterly unnatural to the UNIX way is quite far out to lunch. It may be unnatural to the Plan-9 way of "everything is a namespace", but that was never the UNIX way. The UNIX way is "everything is a file descriptor or a process", but that was never about namespaces.
Yes, some old-timers could argue that original UNIX didn't have sockets, and that the BSD interface is ugly and an abomination and that it _should_ have been a namespace thing, but that argument falls flat on its face when you realize that the "pipe()" system call _was_ in original UNIX, and has all the same issues.
Don't get hung up about names.
Linus
- 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/
| |