On Thu, Apr 13, 2000, Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> Johannes Erdfelt writes:
> > devfsd is not a pretty program. It's pretty hacked together, but
> > aside from integrating new code into it, it already knows all of the
> > appropriate information.
>
> I think I take offence to that: it's got a pretty clear and simple
> structure. What don't you like about it?
Maybe the words I chose were wrong. It is not the prettiest code I've
seen, but it's not really hacked together.
I think it's biggest problem is that it's too simple. It's one source
file. It's difficult to add things.
Look at the config file parsing. Some options (CLEAR_CONFIG) are special
cased from the rest of the arguments, which don't really have strong
argument checking.
You're pretty quick to exit if something slightly goes wrong. This
obvisously isn't all wrong.
And the compatibility stuff is hard coded into the daemon.
If you look at my patch, I had to work around some issues to get things
kinda working. Like the modprobing and stuff.
There's definately room for improvement.
However, this assumes you want devfsd to do more than it currently does.
I still haven't gotten an answer from you about that.
I'd like to do lots of development on devfsd to do all of the things USB
needs, but I'd rather not spend too much time making devfsd do these
things, if you don't want devfsd doing it.
JE
-
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 - 21:00:23 EST