It doesnt have to be devfs, but noone has suggested a reasonable
alternative. For now, devfs appears to be the obvious way to unify them.
> > > making device managing a lot less Unixy
> > FreeBSD has devfs. Is FreeBSD not Unix?
> Never looked into that.
Please look at the devfs FAQ too.
> > > Reasons for devfs:
> > > - Makes handling hot-plug easier, but marginally so
> > - Makes handling hot-plug possible without ugly kludges
> See above. It is quite possible right now (heck, I do it with a Zip drive
> reasonably often). Haven't seen any kludges.
USB.
> > > It _will_ add new bugs
> > True. But they won't affect you if you say CONFIG_DEVFS=N.
> If the CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly implemented, it can screw up other
> code, even when disabled.
Check the devfs *code*, Horst. Then tell us CONFIG_DEVFS handling is badly
implemented. Please don't play these silly theoretical semantics games.
-Dan
-
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/