lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: My $0.02 on devd and devfs
Date
-----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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.070 / U:0.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site