Alan Cox writes:
> > Why ? Why to introduce additional level of indirection and such if you can not
> > introduce new policy anyway (it's defined in "Linux Allocated Devices"
> > document as you said earlier :-)
>
> The policy should be in user space but the default policy should be
> back compatibility. I'd have expected devfs to do that by default
> unless told not to.. as it happens devfsd does it by default if you
> run it.. which I guess isnt far off
Blame Linus ;-) He explicitly wanted the compatibility names removed
from the kernel patch. I fought the good battle, but I lost ;-)
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST