In article <linux.kernel.Pine.GSO.4.10.10003290615400.20715-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
> c) the whole concept of monolytic devfs is a bullshit, excusable
>only because we lack union-mounts. As soon as they are in the devfs will
>be heading out. There _is_ a point in a driver providing a tiny filesystem
>with right set of devices and user union-mounting it on /dev,
So you're talking about have every driver known to man build their
own little devfs and stacking it on top of the /dev heap?
This strikes me as somewhat naive, for a couple of reasons:
* every unionfs implementation I've ever looked at mentions
somewhere in their documentation that it's at the very least bad
for performance to heap on lots of layers
* you'd want EVERY DRIVER to implement their very own little file
system so it could automagically union-mount itself onto /dev?
For some reason, ``code bloat'' is the very first phrase that
came to my mind.
I'd not be surprised if I misunderstood you, of course -- you've got
a fairly impressive BOFH-style wall of obtuse technical jargon that
you bring out when you disagree with something, but it sure sounds
like you want to replace the fairly trivial addition of devfs_register
with a thousand little filesystems all stacked together on top of a
still-nonexistant unionfs.
____
david parsons \bi/ Calling down nukes from orbit to deal with that
\/ bozo in a ferarri who just cut you off is gratifying,
but it's possibly a bit of overkill.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST