Re: Larger dev_t

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Martin Dalecki wrote:
> >
> > devfs -- in the abstract -- really isn't that bad of an idea; after all,
> 
> Devfs is from a desing point of view the duplication for the bad /proc
> design for devices. If you need a good design for general device
> handling with names - network interfaces are the thing too look at.
> mount() should be more like a select()... accept()!
> 

And what on earth makes this better?  I have always thought the socket
interface to be hideously ugly and full of ad-hockery.  Its abstractions
for handle multiple address families by and large don't work, and it
introduces new system calls left, right and center -- sometimes for good
reasons, but please do tell me why I can't open() an AF_UNIX socket, but
have to use a special system call called connect() instead.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt