No this is *not* the same thing.
Mounting devfs on /proc/devices would entail readdir() and stat() to
discover devices, instead of select() and read() (HVB's concern).
Mounting devfs on /proc/devices also introduces a heap of code which
doesn't go through VFS (Viro's concern).
Mounting devfs on /proc/devices also introduces several new features
only one of which is considered useful (TSO's concern).
Mounting devfs on /proc/devices also implements policy into a naming
scheme for device nodes (HPA's concern).
ObServation: I can't believe the stubborness exhibited by both sides
in this never-ending flamewar. Both sides are going to have to agree
that some compromise is needed. HVB has suggested what's obviously a
decent compromise (/proc/devices) and I'm shocked that so many devfs
users are too goddamn stubborn to even consider it. I am a supporter
of devfs, but I'm not so blind I won't listen to the arguments being
raised against devfs, or so stubborn that I won't listen to proposed
compromises.
The existing devfs is *NOT* getting into the kernel. Accept this and
get over it. Start looking for acceptable compromises instead.
--
Nathan Hand - Chirp Web Design - http://www.chirp.com.au/ - $e^{i\pi}+1 = 0$
Phone: +61 2 6230 1871 Fax: +61 2 6230 1515 E-mail: nathanh@chirp.com.au
-
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/