On Thu, May 04, 2000, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First off, I've attached a patch to completely nuke usbdevfs's VFS layer in
> > favor of using devfs for all of that stuff. Nodes are still created, and you
> > use the same ioctl()'s, you just use a different name and you don't have
> > to worry about mounting an extra filesystem to get it.
>
> It would be useful to use devfs just for USB here. I agree 100% that usbdevfs
> should be part of devfs though. I just dont plan to use devfs 8)
I disagree here.
USB is Plug and Play. As such, we need some sort of dynamic filesystem.
However, there is very little reason to have multiple such filesystems.
I think we such standardize on what the rest of the kernel has standardized
on, devfs. If you don't want it, you lose on functionality.
JE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
