> From: Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon@sasami.anime.net]
> Subject: Re: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
>
> >Im a devfs advocate but I agree the symlink design is bad.
> >Would an overmountable devfs address most of the arguments against it?
>
> Hmm... Do we have an Open Source UnionFS imp. we can draw from?
No, we don't. BTW, implementation in 4.4BSD is FUBAR - look at FreeBSD
tasklist for details (not to mention the fact that 4.4 VFS is very
different, so...)
> It's what is needed, right? (I think?)
Partially. It will be needed, but it's not enough.
-
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/