Basically I'm not working on devfs at the moment since the bit that made
it workable was ripped out with extreme prejudice by someone. I'm still
absolutly convinced that a dynamic device registration and export
framework is required in the long run, but I'm not fussed if it's based on
the current
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , Nick Hibma
> writes:
> > > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
> > >
> > > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
> > > it should be based on in the kernel.
> >
> >Anymore infor
In message , Nick Hibma
writes:
> > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
> >
> > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
> > it should be based on in the kernel.
>
>Anymore information available on where you are with this?
I currently have a
> >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
>
> I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
> it should be based on in the kernel.
Anymore information available on where you are with this?
Cheers,
Nick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@
In message , Nick Hibma
writes:
>
>While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
>
>I'd like to know whether there is some interest in getting that work
>underway again. More than interested to help.
I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
it should be
While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
I'd like to know whether there is some interest in getting that work
underway again. More than interested to help.
> You're forgetting that devsw[] is another stopgap. The kernel should
> probably use something like devfs, where dev_t'
6 matches
Mail list logo
