> > Reasons against devfs:
> > - Permanent attributes are kludged on
> Not necessarily a bad thing. procfs and devpts have these too
No. /proc has no permissions at all. You can't chown/chmod files in /proc, but
you can for /dev. And you need it for /dev, because you may want users to use
your modem or something.
devpts doesn't need permissions at all.
However, this point can be discussed: A clean way of managing persistent
permissions for devfs could also be used for /proc - the idea of chowning a
system call so that a special user is allowed to execute it has some hacking
value ;-) (And also I would like to enforce a stricter policy of /proc
information to users, which could also be done this way)
So, this point can be fixed for devfs and if done correctly used in other
places too.
I am not opposed against a devfs done right. _Maybe_ the current devfs is
better (in the sense of functionality and subjective cleanliness) than
cluttering /dev. Current /dev _does_ have problems dealing with large numbers
of devices, thats for sure. But the right fix(tm) still hasn't been seen.
If you do not feel like cluttering /dev: Noone stops you from introducing
subdirectories to an arbitary depth.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
-- Lars Marowsky-Brée Network Managementteuto.net Netzdienste GmbH
- 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/