* Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > And the thing is, in hindsight, after such huge flamewars, years down the
> > > line, almost never do I see the following question asked: 'what were we
> > > thinking merging that crap??'. If any question arises it's usually along
> > > the
> > > lines of: 'what was the big fuss about?'. So I think by and large the
> > > process
> > > works.
> >
> > counterexamples, devfs, tux
>
> Actually, we never merged the Tux web server upstream, and the devfs concept
> has
> kind of made a comeback via devtmpfs.
Bits of devfs also live on in sysfs. So devfs wasn't a bad initial idea IMHO,
but
we had to do one more (incompatible ...) iteration to figure out why we didn't
like it.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure there's a snowball's chance in hell that we'd have
ended up with the current pretty cleaned up hardware/system ABI _without_
devfs.
So it was a necessary pain.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
