>> 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.
That is a personal opinion. I see the current /dev as ugly.
The /dev directory contains a namespace used to access kernel drivers,
not normal data. It is strongly tied to the kernel version.
I think you suffer from fear of the unknown.
> We would not need devfs at all if the kdev_t would be a 64 bit
> unsigned integer.
I can't imagine how one would manage even a billion device nodes,
which is what a 32-bit dev_t gives you. Clearly you will have to
create device nodes dynamically, just like what devfs does.
We don't _need_ virtual consoles. We don't _need_ a parallel port
driver in the kernel. We don't _need_ TCP/IP in the kernel.
All of these things can be done in userspace. For those that like
that kind of (IMHO disgusting) implementation, the HURD is available.
> 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.
Your choice of security or vfat support.
-
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