Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> FWIW, I'd recommend *against* stashing a node in /dev. Better to
>> just access the /devices node directly IMO. The /dev links are a
>> convenience that is appropriate for "quasi-public" interfaces...
>> you're not going to need the /dev link (won't this just live in some
>> fixed location like /devices/pseudo or somesuch?) and its one less
>> thing you need to publish. (Plus then no need for devfsadm changes
>> to support the /dev/heci interface.)
>
> I disagree. Stability is hardly relevant here, because /devices
> essentially is not an interface, it is precisely what the man page says:
>
> All content at or below the /devices name space is an imple-
> mentation artifact and subject to incompatible change or
> removal without notification.
>
> It is true that managing of the /dev namespace could be made easier
> (esp. for leaf driver developers). I believe the issue is well
> recognized among the I/O framework folks, however the work started by
> the devname project is affected by lack of resources.
My point is that the project needs only a private interface between its
user and kernel bits. It need not be visible to anything else. Yes,
relying on it for unbundled software is probably a bad idea. But for
things that are part of ON, I don't see a problem.
-- Garrett
