On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 06:54:28PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000, Frank van Maarseveen <F.vanMaarseveen@inter.NL.net> wrote:
> > Also, I think it is best for usbdevfs to make it part of /proc.
> > The name is a bit misleading because there are no device nodes
> > such as with devfs and mounting it on /proc/bus/usb is awful.
> This is incorrect. Just because the files don't have a major/minor
> doesn't mean they don't have the same functionality.
> Having a virtual FS means we don't need major/minor numbers.
Correct, but that addresses a very fundamental issue. Major/minor have
been there because a kernel is good in numbers. In userland /dev attaches
names to the numbers. What you suggest here is a whole new ballgame. It is
interesting though, but what I saw in /proc/bus/usb was not a replacement
for any device file such as /dev/usb/lp0. It only provided for some debug
info. Also, the tree merely contained numbered files and no descriptive
names. Then there is the same issue as with devfs: persistent state.
So, unless I missed something usbdevfs is not a replacement for /dev.
It is only an addition for /proc.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST