Subject: Re: representation of persistent device status, was Re: devfs, was Re: ptyfs...
To: Jason Thorpe <>
From: Jonathan Stone <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/26/2004 13:23:08
In message <>,
Jason Thorpe writes:

>On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>> I know of certain applications where old-style nodes in the fs is an
>> absolute, non-negotiable requirement, and for which the proposed devfs
>> is an absolute non-starter.

>Give me an example.  

As someone -- perhaps Daniel Carosone -- guessed at: think of an
hardened embedded device (not unlike the hardened routers Thor
sometimes talks about) The kind of embedded-device where perhaps you
already have filesystems set up as either executable, or non-writable,
or both.  (For a second example, think of a chroot jail in such an

I can think of even more stringent requirements giving more compelling
examples, but I don't much care to discuss them in public when people
are taking unreasonable views from the get-go.

>That sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.

There are applications where devfs is a non-starter.  That's just a
fact. Objecting to facts is unreasonable.