Byron Stanoszek writes:
> While I'm at it, here are my comments on /devfs. I feel it's actually
> something we should have because of the inode management problems (too many
> of them in that /dev directory, slow seek time, etc.), but I don't feel the
> way it was implemented was a very good idea--
>
> The current /devfs method forces all user-level programs to be
> rewritten to use the new format, i.e. changing say /dev/tty10 to
> /devfs/tty/10. This also causes the potential problem that new
> programs will be written only for /devfs and not maintain
> compatibility with the old /dev structure.
My original devfs patch had what you wanted: the old names were
preserved. Linus mandated that the old names would not appear in the
kernel. So instead, I updated devfsd which can automatically create
the old names.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST