On Sun 15 Oct 2000 23:37:21 +0100,
Tigran Aivazian <tigran@veritas.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > or to write a "drmfs" (Al Viro's suggestion) or to abandon the original
> > > design of not-sharing the code and do share it (my suggestion but of
> > > course it's up to Rick and other maintainers of that code -- they know
> > > better how to make their own life easier).
> >
> > Or you write a very thin 'drmcore' module. That just contains proc
> > management, registration code and shared library functions that
> > are useful.
>
> Alan, believe it or not, that is exactly what I suggested -- almost
> literally, your words, except I called it drm_core.c :)
In the interest of fixing this problem in a way that is portable to
other operating systems, the best long-term solution seems to be to
just remove the /proc support and provide similar support via the
existing ioctl interface. Other OSs need this anyway, and there's
really no good reason to have the support duplicated if it interacts
poorly with /proc support in recent kernels. (And I don't think the
amount of information is sufficient to justify a drmfs that folks will
have to mount.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST