Re: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)

danielt@digi.com
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:12:07 -0500 (CDT)


On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Horst von Brand wrote:

> "Jakma, Paul" <Paul.Jakma@compaq.com> said:
>
> > > What I want to say is that your "solution" creates more problems than
> > > there were before. The Unix way (/dev is part of a real filesystem;
> > > permissions, ownership, names, links, ... all work the same as with
> > > regular files) is a time-tested design. Not flawless, but its flaws are
> > > known and workarounds are in place. You propose to junk all that for a
> > > shiny, new way of doing things that does break in many ways (see
> > > above).
>
> > arghhhh... horst, devfs supports ownership, names, links, pipes, etc just
> > like normal ext2 /dev... and persistence via a daemon. IIRC the only
> > difference between devfs and ext2 /dev is that devfs bypasses VFS.
>
> And an daemon does the work, so if the machine is overloaded or chashes the
> above just isn't done. "We support XXX, as long as we have shiny weather"
> isn't enough.
>
NO THE DAEMON JUST ENSURES PERSITENCE, READ DAMMIT!

-- 
Daniel Taylor      Senior Test Engineer     Digi International
danielt@digi.com                             Open systems win.

- 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/