That's your decision. However, I'll point out that Theo seemed to be
more concerned with the tendancy for flaming in a devfs thread and the
bandwidth that would consume.
At no point in this discussion have I flamed or resorted to personal
attacks. Nor have I ever implied that someone has strange ways of
thinking because their view differs from mine.
I have encouraged others to follow my example.
> You do not want to even consider that there may be a better
> way to do it than dev_fs.
That isn't the case. The simple fact is that you continue to raise the
naming issue as though it posed a serious problem. I have shown time
and time again that this is simply not the case. The naming issue is
just a red herring.
I have also stated many times that devfs provides the best integrated
solution to the various issues I've identified. I have never said that
devfs is the only way to solve these problems (for specific individual
problems). I do however think that devfs provides the best (only)
integrated solution to all the problems.
Since I haven't seen even a proposal for an integrated solution, or a
comprehensive set of solutions to individual problems, let alone seen
any code for a comprehensive solution, it is entirely reasonable that
I debate the merits of devfs and refute the misinformation.
My fundamental point is that devfs is a worthwile *optional* addition
to the kernel. Other solutions (like volume-based mounting) should
also be pursued, but this does not mean that devfs is pointless or
worthless. The bottom line is that devfs *does* add value to the
kernel, and should be available to those who want it.
Regards,
Richard....
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html