On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 08:58:09PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 07:55:22PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> >>How about a facility to create the character (or block?) special file
> >>node right there in the driverfs directory? Optional of course.
> >
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 07:55:22PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>
>>How about a facility to create the character (or block?) special file
>>node right there in the driverfs directory? Optional of course.
>
>
> No, Linus has stated that this is not ok to do. See the lkml archi
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 07:55:22PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>
> How about a facility to create the character (or block?) special file
> node right there in the driverfs directory? Optional of course.
No, Linus has stated that this is not ok to do. See the lkml archives
for the whole discus
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:42:50PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>
>>Actually it does more than that ... it tells you what minor numbers
>>are assigned to the drivers _currently loaded_ which means that it's
>>not really useful the instant someone plugs in another device.
>
>
>
>>Personally, I've never used /proc/bus/usb/drivers. I've always just
>>looked at lsmod.
>>
>>Why should this be any different?
>
> Because lsmod only works for drivers that are modular. Real users mix built-in
> and modules.
Wasn't someone -- Rusty? -- working an update to the module framework
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:36, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> Personally, I've never used /proc/bus/usb/drivers. I've always just
> looked at lsmod.
>
> Why should this be any different?
Because lsmod only works for drivers that are modular. Real users mix bui
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
| On Sat, Sep 21, 2002, Brad Hards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| > Hash: SHA1
| >
| > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 06:42, David Brownell wrote:
| > > >>I wasn't joking about putting back the /proc/bus/usb/drivers file. This
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002, Brad Hards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 06:42, David Brownell wrote:
> > >>I wasn't joking about putting back the /proc/bus/usb/drivers file. This
> > >> is really going to hurt us in 2.6.
> >
> > Consid
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 06:42, David Brownell wrote:
> > >>I wasn't joking about putting back the /proc/bus/usb/drivers file. This
> > >> is really going to hurt us in 2.6.
> >
> > Considering that the main use of that file that I know about was
> > implicit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 06:42, David Brownell wrote:
> >>I wasn't joking about putting back the /proc/bus/usb/drivers file. This
> >> is really going to hurt us in 2.6.
>
> Considering that the main use of that file that I know about was
> implicit (usbfs
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:42:50PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>
> Actually it does more than that ... it tells you what minor numbers
> are assigned to the drivers _currently loaded_ which means that it's
> not really useful the instant someone plugs in another device.
Wait, I'm confused, whic
>>I wasn't joking about putting back the /proc/bus/usb/drivers file. This is
>>really going to hurt us in 2.6.
Considering that the main use of that file that I know about was
implicit (usbfs is available if its files are present, another
assumption broken in 2.5), I'm not sure I feel any pain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:52, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 11:53:41PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > A simple fix is to change the test to [ $COUNT -lt 2 ];
>
> Good catch, yes the drivers file disappeared, and until now, almost no
> one noti
13 matches
Mail list logo
