> >Check the devfs *code*, Horst. Then tell us CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly
> >implemented. Please don't play these silly theoretical semantics games.
It was claimed that something that was CONFIG_XXX=N could never affect
excisting code. Furthermore, a newbie would be able to fix the kernel in
half an hour. Well, the newbie might screw up, or the CONFIG_XXX could be
implemented wrong, or there might me subtle interactions that get broken by
the included/excluded code.
> I guess he thinks that since there is (having never looked at devfs) some
> chance in his perspective that devfs might be poorly coded, that it's
> fundamentally bad. Nevermind the years of testing and code audit by
> other kernel hackers, including Ext2-Ted...
Never said anything like that. I have the highest respect for Richard
Gooch, I just think the _concept_ of a dynamic /dev is mistaken. BTW, there
has been some heavy criticism on the code too here.
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616- 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/