Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:30:11 -0700 (PDT) | From | Dan Hollis <> | Subject | Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) |
| |
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Horst von Brand wrote: > > Also, the current USB device naming system in 2.3.20 is a very ugly kludge > > that can go away with devfs. > It could go away in other ways to. Why _must_ it be devfs?
It doesnt have to be devfs, but noone has suggested a reasonable alternative. For now, devfs appears to be the obvious way to unify them.
> > > making device managing a lot less Unixy > > FreeBSD has devfs. Is FreeBSD not Unix? > Never looked into that.
Please look at the devfs FAQ too.
> > > Reasons for devfs: > > > - Makes handling hot-plug easier, but marginally so > > - Makes handling hot-plug possible without ugly kludges > See above. It is quite possible right now (heck, I do it with a Zip drive > reasonably often). Haven't seen any kludges.
USB.
> > > It _will_ add new bugs > > True. But they won't affect you if you say CONFIG_DEVFS=N. > If the CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly implemented, it can screw up other > code, even when disabled.
Check the devfs *code*, Horst. Then tell us CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly implemented. Please don't play these silly theoretical semantics games.
-Dan
- 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/
| |