Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev

Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:13:09 +1100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David E. Fox: "compiling 2.1.78 results in some undefined symbols"
Previous message: Bill Broadhurst: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev"

Bill Broadhurst writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 01:30:10PM +1100, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > You may want to disable major&minor support for devfs-capable drivers
> > so that you *know* that you are using devfs.
> > Anyway, I've just added a new config option CONFIG_DEVFS_ONLY which is
> > off by default, so you will have support for both.
>
> Well, add one for NO_DEVFS too for those of us who don't want ANY devfs.
> I don't/won't have one as I see no reason to ever do this. Just as I
> have no kerneld on my systems. If I want the users to have it I'll
> compile it into the kernel.

I think you'll find that your NO_DEVFS has the same effect as my
CONFIG_DEVFS_FS, which is disabled by default. So the default
behaviour is that nothing is changed.

Regards,

Richard....

Next message: David E. Fox: "compiling 2.1.78 results in some undefined symbols"
Previous message: Bill Broadhurst: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev"