Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> said:
> 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.
How about a non-existent directory? Would be nice for daemons who don't
need a pwd at all for their work, and some kernel threads too.
> > 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...
Yep. So linux-2.4 comes out next century ;-)
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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