Re: USB device allocation

Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:08:02 +0400 (MSD)


In <19991008093800.A25741@wookie.chirp.com.au> Nathan Hand (nathanh@chirp.com.au) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 11:15:08AM -0700, david parsons wrote:
>> In article <linux.kernel.19991007104127.C15982@wookie.chirp.com.au>,
>> Nathan Hand <nathanh@chirp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >This is why I suggested losing the devfs FILESYSTEM but retaining what
>> >is devfs's INTENTION. Use the existing devfsd to maintain nodes on the
>> >disk. Most of the benefits are kept. Some problems are addressed.
>>
>> Removing the filesystem makes devfs completely useless.

> The /dev directory can still be "dynamic", the difference is that it's an
> ext2 filesystem being updated from userspace, rather than a virtual devfs
> filesystem being updated from kernelspace.

> Realistically it only loses two features that people might covet (special
> behaviour on open() of non-existent nodes, ability to use a non-UNIX like
> filesystem for your /). The majority of people lose nothing.

Main ability of devfs (to me) is ultimate solution for dev_t size: there are
no need to allocate major and minor number for devices in some center.

> Notice that what I'm proposing here is exactly like the cardmgr daemon in
> the PCMCIA package. With the introduction of PCMCIA into the kernel, it's
> sensible to make ALL devices contact a cardmgr-alike daemmon.
> ____

-
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/