> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Im a devfs advocate but I agree the symlink design is bad.
> > > Would an overmountable devfs address most of the arguments against it?
> > Not sure... Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'overmountable'?
>
> I guess the better term is "Union fs".
The idea being that devfs and /dev (on the disk) are one and the same
and the kernel is happily off making changes to files on the disk when a device
is added or removed? That and devfs catches the 'open' call to determine what
device to talk to?
Hmm. It sounds almost like you're coming up w/ a layer between the
filesystem and the kernel to support this idea. Or perhaps the layer is
between the user-space proggie and the kernel (Assuming the kernel is above the
filesystem...).
Thinking about it.
Stephen
-
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/