Subject: Re: representation of persistent device status, was Re: devfs, was Re: ptyfs...
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <email@example.com>
Date: 11/26/2004 13:23:08
In message <DBD36E09-3E62-11D9-9EC5-000A957650EC@shagadelic.org>,
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.