Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:55:56 +1100
From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
> As far as devfs not having to be mounted over /dev, if we *are*
> going to move to a world where for certain functionality devfs is
> mandatory, it would be useful to standardize using a standard
> pathname for accessing devfs --- say, /devfs. If you do want to
> mount devfs over /dev, then /devfs can be a symlink to /dev. If you
> don't want to mount devfs over /dev, then devfs can just be mounted
> on top of /devfs.
Yes, that would work.
> This way, application programs that need fixed, compiled-in paths
> can just use /devfs and be guaranteed to work on both kinds of
> systems.
The way I envisioned it, a disc-based /dev would have (for example)
/dev/cpu being a symlink to $devfsroot/cpu
Having two hierarchies encoded isn't good.
I'd much prefer the "/devfs" solution. That means one symlink for folks
who want to use devfs, and one mountpoint for folks who don't.
Compare this to how many symlinks we would need to put into /dev in the
non-devfs case, assuming that people start moving into kitchen sink into
devfs, and it's just not pretty.
- Ted
-
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 - 21:00:34 EST