Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode

From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com)
Date: Wed Feb 23 2000 - 00:19:19 EST

Next message: almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
Next in thread: George: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Richard Gooch wrote:
> I'd advocate we move from a "tough, use procfs" attitude to a "tough,
> use devfs" attitude. If you don't want to have devfs in your kernel,
> you wouldn't want procfs either (if being consistent). After all,
> devfs doesn't *have* to be mounted over /dev.

Let's be realistic here. For most users, disabling procfs ain't gonna
happen. Disabling devfs is the norm, for now...

Regards,

Jeff

-- Jeff Garzik | Building 1024 | Viva la open source! MandrakeSoft, Inc. |

- 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/

Next message: almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
Next in thread: George: "Re: [patch-2.3.47] /proc/driver/microcode -> /dev/cpu/microcode"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST