Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

• Next message: David Ford: "[pcmcia testing/modular tulip] ambicom with tulip.o module from kernel 2.3.96-pre6-3"
• Previous message: Jan Harkes: "Re: Proposal "LUID""
• In reply to: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
• Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
• Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 15-Apr-2000 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Pretty much. It still begs the question why you need the virtual
> filesystem underneath though.

Yep. All you'd need is the 'device present/removed' events from the
kernel and the daemon could create the nodes.

        J

-
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/

• Next message: David Ford: "[pcmcia testing/modular tulip] ambicom with tulip.o module from kernel 2.3.96-pre6-3"
• Previous message: Jan Harkes: "Re: Proposal "LUID""
• In reply to: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
• Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
• Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:27 EST