Re: Migrating to larger numbers
Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:05:10 +1000
H. Peter Anvin writes:
> Richard Gooch wrote:
> >
> > But on the issue of whether devfs is a good idea or not, I strongly
> > disagree. Let's face it, the magic devices numbers scheme is a hack
> > which dates back decades, and probably would never have happened if a
> > decent VFS interface was implemented right from the start. There must
> > be a reason our good friend Ken added a devfs in Plan 9.
> >
> > This business of maintaining two, three or four separate databases
> > (the kernel code, devices.txt, /dev and MAKEDEV) which need to be
> > consistent is really silly. Duplication of data has always been a bad
> > idea, because there inevitably develop inconsistencies.
> > And this ignores all the things that are so much easier, faster and
> > more efficient with devfs as well as things that are impossible
> > without it.
> >
> > I know that devfs is a new way of doing things that breaks with old
> > Unix tradition. But breaking with tradition is not always a bad
> > thing. Otherwise we'd still be swinging from the trees.
>
> devfs is based on a completely bogus idea: that a device driver is a
> kernel thing. *THIS* is the supreme fallacy, and a major pitfall for
> Linux today. devfs in fact helps perpetualize this problem, in large
> part by moving policy into the kernel that has no business being there.
> It's the DOS way of fixing things -- quick, dirty, and extremely
> short-sighted.
Oh, come on! Of course a device driver belongs in the kernel. We're
not a microkernel, you know.
Anyway, you talk about this major pitfall which is a problem. *What*
is this "problem"?
Regards,
Richard....
-
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/