From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261812AbTJHWev (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:34:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261815AbTJHWev (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:34:51 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:34320 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261812AbTJHWeu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:34:50 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: devfs and udev Date: 8 Oct 2003 15:34:29 -0700 Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Message-ID: References: <20031007131719.27061.qmail@web40910.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Disclaimer: Not speaking for Transmeta in any way, shape, or form. Copyright: Copyright 2003 H. Peter Anvin - All Rights Reserved Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Followup to: By author: David Lang In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > the namespace was different becouse Linus demanded that it be different, > origionally it had a mode where it would generate all the same names (and > another mode that generated sun style names) one of the requirements > before it was put in was to change it to the existing devfs-only names. > > blame devfs for a lot of things (bugs, etc) but not the names. > Actually, this is bullshit. If you go back and look what Linus actually said, it was: - One namespace only. If you're going to a new namespace, then that's going to be it. You're not going to put two namespaces in the kernel. - If you're going hierarcial, do it right, not the Sun-like halfassed thing. -hpa -- at work, in private! If you send me mail in HTML format I will assume it's spam. "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64