H. Peter Anvin writes:
> Richard Gooch wrote:
> >
> > H. Peter Anvin writes:
> > > The memory devices would be inadvisable to move, since they are
> > > "well known" device locations. ALL Unices have them.
> >
> > Yes, I know. That's why the patch I sent to Linus didn't do that ;-)
> > But perhaps /dev/kmem, /dev/mem, /dev/port, /dev/random and
> > /dev/urandom could be moved, since only Linux-specific tools would
> > need to be modified.
> >
> > It's really only /dev/full, /dev/null and /dev/zero that are "well
> > known".
>
> ALL Unices have /dev/mem, /dev/kmem, and several non-Linuxes have
> /dev/random and /dev/urandom. Furthermore, these names are already
> used by a large number of tools.
Yeah, but each Unix has it's own specialised tools which use these
files. We could (if we wanted) have a planned migration.
> There really is nothing to gain by removing them, as they are
> one-of-a-kind devices. It's rather different with things that can
> exist in N duplicates.
Yeah, as long as the "one-of-a-kind" devices don't proliferate. Which
has been known to happen (one look a /dev reveals this). Well, at
least now we can stop the rot. In my role as "gatekeeper", I won't
allow any new (non-directory) entries in the top-level of devfs unless
there's an awfully compelling reason for it.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST