Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation) | Date | 12 Oct 1999 12:41:34 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.199910121901.NAA26203@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>, Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> wrote: >david parsons writes:
>> Richard, if I produced an emasculated version of the patch that only >> populates a flat filesystem with major and minor numbers required, >> would you accept it?
>I doubt it. I can't see the point. I'm not willing to sacrifice useful >features for the sake of satisfying some people's idealogical vision >of purity. I've spent more time than I should have explaining why I >think that vision is flawed.
I can certainly understand that, but I'm an impatient sort and I really really REALLY want to have a devfs in the kernel; a flat filesystem[1] isn't any worse than 100-e% of the current Linux systems are, and if it would put a devfs into the mainline kernel that would still be better than the traditional way of doing things.
____ david parsons \bi/ Though a port to 2.0.28 would be nice :-) \/
[1: which can't really be flat, because of the ptx subdirectory [2] ] [2: Isn't that a devfs? What's it doing in the kernel, anyway? ]
- 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/
| |