RE: 2.3.48 devfs problem

From: Dunlap, Randy (randy.dunlap@intel.com)
Date: Tue Feb 29 2000 - 16:48:01 EST


Let's address multiple problems here.

Alexander Viro wrote:
> Seriously, guys - why the fuck did usbdevfs end up (a) outside of fs/*
> and (b) with unpronouncable name? I mean, ewwww...

It's only marginally less pronouncable than devfs, but we should
drop this part of the discussion, since it's only opinions and
can go on forever.

Here's what Tom Sailer (sailer@ife.ee.ethz.ch) wrote about usbdevfs:

<quote>
Eh? Have you understood what usbdevfs is for? It's completely orthogonal
to devfs. usbdevfs is for usermode drivers talking to their devices, not
for application programs. Also the reason for usbdevfs is that the
locking
issues against device removal are hard to get right, I doubt it will be
easy to incorporate into another fs without seriously disturbing that
other fs...
</quote>

> > Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au) wrote:
> > > This is NOT a devfs problem. USB has it's own device
> > > filesystem (or whatever it is). It doesn't use the
> > > "real" devfs.

Richard's reply here was concerning a syntax error in drivers/usb/*
in 2.3.48. This was apparently the result of some changes to
a file_operations structure, but:

whoever made the changes didn't update drivers/usb/*, which is
    OK, as long as:
there is some open discussion of them. Was there?
    I go thru the ~300 lkml emails daily, but I don't read
    every one of them. However, I don't recall seeing any news
    about a global data structure change. It would be nice
    (IMO more than nice for Linux to continue to be able to grow
    in size) if such global changes were discussed or at least
    if subsystem maintainers were notified of them in advance,
    so that we wouldn't be hit up side the head by them.

> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> Yeah... "procfs sucks, it's cluttered like hell, let's clean
> everything
> up". And thus two filesystems full of much trickier stuff went in...

So /proc should have been named something else, like /sys
or /sysinfo, eons ago, but it wasn't, so we have /proc.
That doesn't make it all wrong.

~Randy
___________________________________________________
|Randy Dunlap Intel Corp., DAL Sr. SW Engr.|
|randy.dunlap.at.intel.com 503-696-2055|
|NOTE: Any views presented here are mine alone |
|and may not represent the views of my employer. |
|_________________________________________________|

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:23 EST