Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: devfs - why not ?

# Re: devfs - why not ?

Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:59:52 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Linda Walsh: "Re: Proposal "LUID""
- Previous message: Ed Carp: "Re: IP masquerading Vulnerabilites"
- Next in thread: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Maybe reply: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Maybe reply: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "/dev/volumes - was: Re: devfs - why not ?"

On 14 Apr 2000, david parsons wrote:

> In article <linux.kernel.Pine.GSO.4.10.10004131625080.11301-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>,
> Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Apr 2000, david parsons wrote:
>
> >> Is your patch availible? If you've made devfs smaller and not
> >> eviscerated it in the process, I'm sure it would be something that
> >> all the responsible parties would like to see.
> >>
> >> ____
> >> david parsons \bi/ inquiring minds, doncha know.
> >> \/
> >
> >Inquiring minds are welcome to wait until
> [In many words: ``no, I don't have a patch'']

No. It's spelled ``list of the things that must be written before
Richard's code will cease being a lovely way to crash the kernel''.
Why do you think I'm doing that kind of rewrite during the freeze?
One more time: Richard's support for multiple mounts is fundamentally
broken. By design. It got into the tree. Fixing it requires changes to the
whole fscking lookup/mount code. Yes, it's the right thing to do, but it
became necessary to do _now_ (instead of doing it more or less at leisure
during the 2.4 with merge in 2.5.early) precisely because of devfs. That's
what I'm doing. Since several weeks ago. Fixing the devfs-proper requires
all this stuff done. As I've told: after <list of changes> will be done.
Learn to read. And fuck off, already.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Linda Walsh: "Re: Proposal "LUID""
- Previous message: Ed Carp: "Re: IP masquerading Vulnerabilites"
- Next in thread: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Maybe reply: David Elliott: "Device Naming, was: Re: devfs - why not ?"
- Maybe reply: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl: "/dev/volumes - was: Re: devfs - why not ?"