>Specifically, what is ugly about it? Is it intrinsic in nature, or
>something fixable? Is the design flawed? Then how? Back up your
I don' t know about the Theodore idea of ugly but I agree with him. _I_
see devfs flowed by its start. I just explained my thoughts about devfs
some month ago before the first release of devfs. devfs is a workaround.
We would not need devfs at all if the kdev_t would be a 64 bit unsigned
integer.
Instead of reply me that with devfs the root device _can_ be mounted
readonly and we _can_ boot with a root fs with no major/minor number
support, please tell me that you need to use these features. We could also
write a videogame in the kernel and eventually play with it before mount
the root device if you really want not used features (even if this example
is not the right one, the exciting videogame probably would be played a
lot ;-).
I had to say that I never tried devfs and that it could be a very
confortable workaround but I can' t like it ;-). Probably I' ll try soon
though. I' m afraid to say this again and after the sure good work of
Richard...
Andrea[s] Arcangeli
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html