>a question for Richard on this.
Interesting questions, and relevant all, but taking
away the fs from devfs deletes some (most) of the
functionality, most notably, the major/minor
limitation, or, having devfs style device nodes.
>from what I have read this should be a fairly minor change, but may
>satisfy those who dislike a virtual filesystem without sacraficing
>existing capabilities.
Unfortunately, while your assertion is logical, I
don't think that the opponents can accept the non-
VFS nature of devfs.
Richard, I have read that devfs escapes using the
standard VFS code. Is it a matter of overhead in
using the VFS, or is it a matter of necessity in
that the special nature of devfs device nodes
would require a new type of special file be created?
I appologize if this has been asked already!
-
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/