RE: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation

Matthew Dharm (mdharm@one-eyed-alien.net)
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT)

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, let's explicitly list all
of the mentioned options. As I see it, the fall into 3 categories:

1) devfs, plus configuration daemon
2) Static assignment, plus daemon if needed
3) Rolling assignment (as I proposed, I don't think this made it to the
linux-kernel list... if not, I should resend those messages), plus
daemon

Are there any other proposals on the table that I've missed?

Matt Dharm

On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, David Weinehall wrote:

> My opinion on devfs is, that as a lot of people refuse to accept it as the
> solution, we have two options.
>
> Either the people that oppose devfs come up with something better ("Show
> us the code!")
>
> or
>
> We ignore this problem completely and continue with static devices and a
> growingly insane device-system.
>
>
> /David
> _ _
> // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
> // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
> \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
>
>
> 

-- 
Matthew Dharm                                         InterNIC: MDD94
Engineer                                              Cell: (619) 890-6943
Home: mdharm@one-eyed-alien.net                       Home: (858) 689-1908
Beep: page-matt@one-eyed-alien.net                    Beep: (858) 621-8155


I could always suspend a few hundred accounts and watch what happens.
					-- Tanya
User Friendly, 7/31/1998






-
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/