On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Blu3Viper wrote:
> I'm sorry but this is uncalled for. Some people are excessively crass
> when they don't like something. Having a completely magic /dev appears to
> be perfectly acceptable to plenty of people. It's a kernel option not a
> requirement, let it be. In point A you bespeak evil of hard coded things
> and yet you want a hard coded template in point D.
Template that consists of empty root directory. The point being: if we can
have _some_ ->fs->root and ->fs->pwd from the very beginning then a lot of
code will become cleaner - less special-casing, yodda, yodda.
> As for point E, no. Flat out no. The current design of devfs is heavily
> changed due to a lot of influence from Linus and related about how it should
> be done. And for inflicting it upon you, again it is an option you
> certainly are not required to implement either in part or whole. It is not
> the perfect solution everyone wants but Linus has accepted it for the time
> being.
I'm sorry, but what Linus had accepted is a huge can of worms, _some_ of
which are going to be fixed before 2.4. Frankly, I'ld rather postpone the
stuff with multiple mounts until 2.5. No such luck - devfs went in...
-
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 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:24 EST