> 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?
>
> It's what is needed, right? (I think?)
I'll risk calling this modest progress.
1) You admit that there is room for at least one design improvement.
2) You admit that you don't fully understand the requirements to
impliment same.
Maybe, just maybe if we non-experts sit quitely enough, OS designers
will toss a few ideas around and this thread won't be a total waste.
-Mike
-
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/