AV> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> In <Pine.LNX.3.95.991008110717.897A-100000@chaos.analogic.com> Richard B. Johnson (root@chaos.analogic.com) wrote:
>> RJ> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Devfs DO NOT need major/minor system. It uses major/minor system for existing
>> >> devices to simplify conversation but it's not requirement.
>>
>> RJ> What? The only reason for any of the stuff in the /dev directory is
>> RJ> to associate a major/minor number with a file-descriptor. This happens
>> RJ> during open(). This is Unix and that's the way Unix works. the choice
>> RJ> of putting such "devices" in the "/dev" directory is policy. They
>> RJ> could be anywhere.
>>
>> Why it's so important ?
AV> Learn. This place is not exactly UNIX 101, you know...
Yes. I know. I know even more: Linux is NOT Unix. Why we should borrow each
and every idea from Unix without even thinking is beyond me.
>> RJ> Any 'devfs' cannot violate the Unix policy or you don't have Unix.
>>
>> And what if I'm not want Unix ?
AV> Than don't use it, damnitall!
I'm not use Unix, I use Linux.
AV> WTF are you doing on l-k in that case, may I ask you?
l-k is *LINUX*-kernel mailing list, not *UNIX*-kernel ...
AV> devfs may be good/bad/whatever, but _why_ _the_ _green_ _bloody_
AV> _fsck_ is it discussed on l-k by people who apparently never cared to look
AV> at the code it should interact with?
Just since system created only by kernel hackers without interaction with
non-kernel hackers will be usable ONLY for kernel hackers. BTW I seen that
code. It's little non-standard usage of VFS but it's real life, not academic
research.
AV> It's not a democracy and vox co^H^Hpopuli doesn't work here (or anywhere
AV> else, for that matter).
It worked with gcc :-) Yes, here problem is not enough to solve it such
painfull way, but who knows...
AV> Could we _please_ stop this bogosity? Take care to read the kernel source
AV> if you want to produce arguments for inclusion of the thing into system.
Are you sure that raw I/O was included just since it looked good in kernel
sources ? I bet no. It's solution for problem not in kernel but outside of
kernel. The same with devfs. BTW since most arguments against devfs was NOT
technical ones (even from Linus !!!) I can not understood how reading of
kernel sources will help here...
AV> It is a prerequisite.
It's prerequisite ONLY when something is rejected purely on techincal basis.
This is not a case with devfs.
AV> And let Richard speak if/when he wants to do it. At least he _did_ care to
AV> RTFS. Sheesh...
-
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/