Subject: Re: Call for review: The New Block/Character Device Switch Configuration Framework
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/28/2001 12:50:09
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 06:10:19PM +0900, MAEKAWA Masahide wrote:
> Matthew Jacob <email@example.com> wrote:
> >But I see no advantage to dynamic devsw additions if you don't also
> >propagate this where user applications, opening well known device names
> >in /dev, get the device they expect. It seems that it deals with part
> >of the problem, but not the really important part.
> Of course, I understand my proposal is not atractive for userland.
> So I never mention userland (excluded config(8)).
> The dynamic devnode configuration framework like devfs is useful.
> Yes, it can be implemented without the dynamic devsw framework.
> But the dynamic configuration of kernel needs the dynamic devsw.
> The dynamic configuration of kernel needs 'configurable' kernel.
> My proposal is not for the userland but for the kernel.
> To miss the word 'for/in kernel' is my mistake...
Well, but as long as the userland problem isn't solved, you can't use your
changed kernel at all...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----