[Horst von Brand]
> In the case above I'm using extant mechanism (kmod has to stay for
> the later one to work).
Actually devfsd doesn't need kmod.
Or were you saying you need kmod for some other purpose?
> devfsd, working on a on-disk device tree does solve the problems
> rather nicely IMHO. devfs is a horrible kludge, and seeing Linus
> include that in his tree makes me seriously doubt his taste this one
> time. And the devfsd idea is Linus's, AFAIKT.
I agree with some of that. I've been a long-time fan of devfs, but I
also see the point that a lot of the functionality could be
accomplished by the devfsd protocol on bare ext2. At one point in time
I actually had "hpa-compliant devfsd" on my todo list ... you know, the
list whose ->pop() callback is unimplemented....
So do it. Pull devfsd out of fs/devfs/base.c and into
drivers/devfsd.c, and also create a drivers/devfs_stub.c that
implements enough infrastructure for devfsd to work. I don't have the
time to do this and I strongly suspect I might be lacking in the
expertise as well (I talk a lot bigger than I code).
Peter
-
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 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:21 EST