>>>>> "Eric" == Eric W Biederman <ebiederm> writes:
Eric> Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch> writes:
>> I second that - I always had the impression that if devfs ever
>> went into the official kernel it was going to be as an option,
>> leaving system functional without enabling it.
Eric> I never saw an argument for makeing the system non functional.
Eric> I did see an argument for new ``virtual devices'' which don't
Eric> have device nodes (so must either reside in procfs or devfs)
Eric> residing in devfs.
Right now the system is pretty non functional if you do not have
/proc. Then there was the argument that if you are willing to enable
procfs you should be willing to enable devfs.
>> If devfs is going to be a mandatory I would like to see a
>> statement about this from Linus.
Eric> Who do think is silently pushing devfs?
I didn't claim that there was a conspiracy, I was asking for
clarification. The last couple of days there has been a bit of
discussion over moving things to devfs.
Eric> Linus has argued that sysctl is bad (hardcoded magic numbers).
Eric> Linus has argues that ioctl is bad (Not the UNIX way, all
Eric> could/should go through read/write) Others have argued procfs is
Eric> bad (you can't handle device permissions...). Richard Gooch
Eric> argued devfs seems to handle these issues best... The next day
Eric> devfs was in the development kernel.
Eric> But I do agree there is no need to rush deployment or change.
Eric> However we are certainly moving in a devfs direction.
In the past devfs has always been advertised as an _option_ now you
say that we _move_ in the direction of devfs .... move pretty much
implies default.
Jes
-
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 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:11 EST