Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-00,: Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev

# Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev

James Mastros (root@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org)
Thu, 1 Jan 1998 01:15:08 -0500 (EST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Doug Ledford: "RE: kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout"
- Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: again security proposal"
- In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev"

On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> I think I got that. What you're suggesting is an interface which
> allows you to plug in any of the following implementations:
>
> - create a real file in /dev on an ext2fs
Well... yeha... but any of these schemes can do that...

> - create a virtual file in /proc/dev on a procfs
Not really. I want a nice, clean /dev devfs.

> - create a virtual file in /dev on a devfs
Yeha.

> - create some virtual file which talks to a user-space daemon
NO! Have a /dev devfs that talks to a user-space daemon. Should you for
some odd reason want one. But, more importantly, have a runtime, user,
replacable policy. I'm thinking of having a kernel module do this job
instead of a userspace daemon.

One problem with this approach that I just though of: We want the useage
count (of the module) to be zero, so the user can remove it at will. But
then again, we don't want kerneld to unload it accedently... any ideas?

> I don't see a problem with such an interface. What I don't see is why
> you would want a user-space daemon at all. I think (hope) that a
> simple implementation can be developed without any need for a daemon,
> yet still retaining necessary functionality.
So do I. But we should have a replacable way of doing this, and it should
cost only a jnz, and a jmp. (Is overide_create != NULL? Then call that
function with the same arguments we got (same arguments == no need to pass
them again, our caller already did all the work)).

> Regards,
> Richard....

-=- James Mastros

    --
    Information as a base of power is coming to an end.  In the way the world
    works tomorrow, the power to *do* *something* *with* *information* is what
    will matter.

    	-=- James Mastros, rephrasing Nugget (David McNett, distributed.net
    	    Big Man)

- Next message: Doug Ledford: "RE: kernel: scsi : aborting command due to timeout"
- Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: again security proposal"
- In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: PROPOSAL: /proc/dev"