From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mo4.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.228.4]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UD9zM-0008Qd-K9 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:46:19 +0000 Received: from mail413.ha.ovh.net (gw6.ovh.net [213.251.189.206]) by mo4.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AB3E104E395 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:57:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:41:53 +0100 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Message-ID: <20130306084153.GD4401@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <1361014553-24489-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20130306074327.GD1906@pengutronix.de> <20130306080118.GA4401@game.jcrosoft.org> <20130306081122.GF1906@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130306081122.GF1906@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] devfs: add symlink support To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On 09:11 Wed 06 Mar , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:01:18AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 08:43 Wed 06 Mar , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:35:53PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > > > --- > > > > fs/devfs.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/driver.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+) > > > > > > What's your usecase with this patch? Telling me could increase my > > > motivation applying it. > > I use it to handle boot device and tty today > > > > so the application part does not care about the real hardware they always have > > the same device (file) to search > > This is in the same league as I wanted to do with persistent device > names. We should think about this in a more general way. > > > > > > > One thing I see with this patch that the next thing would be to add > > > directory support to debugfs in which case we might be better off > > > adding real device nodes and remove the devfs like we have it now > > > completely. > > yeah I've the idea to rewrite the devfs completly and the ramfs too > > > > as the ramfs should be at vfs level so the devfs will nearly implement nothing > > vfs level? You would have to implement one first, we do not have a vfs > level at all ;) yeah because today we duplicate too much code so with this we wil reduce the size of barebox Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox