> 'special' files are files that have special attributes, not that go
>away when the power goes off.
I guess the point here is that we are all arguing over semantics.
>> No it didn't. It lets drivers decide, and you can chown/chmod/ln etc to
your
>> heart's content, but persistence was handled by tar which worked
beautifully
>> via a standard FILESYSTEM INTERFACE.
> No, it was a hack. The permissions were not stored w/ the file.
They
>were not stored on even the same filesystem that the file was.
Although I was wrong, I get the feeling Richard did/does it this
way because the VFS isn't suited to what he wanted and would add
a layer to node creation, as apposed to simply having implicit
files, so-to-speak.
>> implying
>> the current devfs would be bad to have in the kernel. Cite your reasons.
> We've just been going over my reasons.
And I think they're bullshit, and they're NOT reasons
to exclude the devfs, they are only reasons for you
to not use it.
>> I was talking about extensions for devfsd, where, I SHOULD have said
"when
>> devfsd gets awoken by a devfs namespace change, devfsd could..."
> Why does devfs have to be mounted then? Sounds like it could do
what
>it wants without being mounted and trying to play like a filesystem, when
it
>actually isn't one..
Well, except that you have to create some different class of special
file or still raise the dev_t bar a little, and that's not permenent.
-Shawn
-
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/