Subject: Re: root device
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/10/2003 18:03:17
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:53:38PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> I think we should put them all in the tree. It'll let us keep track of
> what is and isn't in the system.
That would require a MAJOR overhaul of all of the pseudo-device drivers,
and may not, in fact, be the exact semantics that we want.
> > 2. The parent of pseudo-devices that are in the device tree is
> > ROOT. It would be fine with me to change it to PSEUDO (and
> > define such a value, obviously), but then you'd need to make
> > sure that all the places that test for ROOT also test for
> > PSEUDO.
> Why not make a PSEUDO node under ROOT, and put all pseudo devices under
> that? That way it's obvious that it's a pseudo device.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>