> You see, as soon as you want slightly more structured stuff (deeper than
> one level) you need the dentry tree, yodda, yodda. IOW, you need a
> filesystem anyway and it's easy to implement. Want me to do framebufferfs?
> Would make a nice demo. No majors. No minors. No ioctls. Less code than
> in current tree. ~3 days to implement.
Yes. I like to give this fbdevfs a try. Once tested I have no problem
placing it into my kernel tree I have. I planned on reworking the fbdev
layer anyways for 2.5.X. As Linus pointed out is the backwards
compatiabilty. Maybe name it to something else. Since I like to see fbdev
and drm merge we need a new name anyways. Later I can migrate DRI
functionality into this filesystem. It would be a nice demo. It would be
really cool if I could stream the framebuffer image over a network :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 21:00:44 EST