>> [snip]
>> > has it AFAIK. Why it's Ok for procfs and not Ok for devfs ?
>> Procfs sucks. It's a PITA and will remain such for quite a while,
>> I'm afraid. It got into the kernel and too many utilities depend on its
>> current form to fix it fast. Worse yet, it doesn't have a coherent
>> interface and calls are scattered all over the tree + 3rd-party drivers.
>> Heck, that's one of the reasons why additional interfaces are not too
>> welcome, to put it mildly. They tend to stick. If they are local enough
>> they can be fixed later, but otherwise they'ld bloody better be good from
>> the very beginning _and_ remain so.
MD> Thank's! Finally a single only developer on linux-kernel who has enough
MD> of guts to admit to design errors here in a crear nonnebulous way :-).
To be exact so far it's one of VERY few letters with complains about devfs
based on facts and not on myths... At least Viro looked on devfs before
bashing it... His complains are correct and valid unlike most... You can
fix races and errors (at least in principle) but you can not fix attitudes :-/
-
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/