Messages in this thread | | | From | Shawn Leas <> | Subject | RE: My $0.02 on devd and devfs | Date | Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:53:28 -0500 |
| |
-----Original Message----- From: David Lang [mailto:dlang@diginsite.com] Subject: Re: My $0.02 on devd and devfs
>a question for Richard on this.
Interesting questions, and relevant all, but taking away the fs from devfs deletes some (most) of the functionality, most notably, the major/minor limitation, or, having devfs style device nodes.
>from what I have read this should be a fairly minor change, but may >satisfy those who dislike a virtual filesystem without sacraficing >existing capabilities.
Unfortunately, while your assertion is logical, I don't think that the opponents can accept the non- VFS nature of devfs.
Richard, I have read that devfs escapes using the standard VFS code. Is it a matter of overhead in using the VFS, or is it a matter of necessity in that the special nature of devfs device nodes would require a new type of special file be created?
I appologize if this has been asked already!
- 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/
| |