Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

From: Mike Castle (dalgoda@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2000 - 20:28:32 EST

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement"
Previous message: Maciej W. Rozycki: "Re: loopback blockdev deadlocks -- explained?"
Next in thread: Mike Castle: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 08:42:53AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> At least I'm thinking of it as a "autofs"+"device manager" kind of thing.

Wouldn't something more generic be appropriate? No since tying it to
devices only. But a generic call out to any kind of helper function might
be of use for other applications besides populating appropriate permissions
and such.

mrc

-- Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly dalgoda@ix.netcom.com and be right all the time, or not work at all www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen

- 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: Alexander Viro: "Re: [RFC] automount based devfs replacement"
Previous message: Maciej W. Rozycki: "Re: loopback blockdev deadlocks -- explained?"
Next in thread: Mike Castle: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST