From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:01:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:01:20 -0400 Received: from fjordland.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.101]:36357 "EHLO fjordland.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:01:13 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Linus Torvalds , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 03:01:49 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , James Simmons , Alan Cox , Neil Brown , Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051603014903.00406@starship> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 15 May 2001 22:51, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > If you want them all to inherit it - inherit from mountpoint. > > ..which is exactly what the device node ends up being. The implicit > mount-point. > > And which point, btw, it is completely indistinguishable to user > space whether the thing is implemented as a full filesystem, or > whether it's just that the device node exports a simple "lookup()" > that it passes down to the device driver. So this is also the point > where it becomes nothing but an implementation issue, and as such > it's much less contentious. > > Done right, they'll be automatic mount-points Sounds like "treat it like a file and it acts like a file, treat it like a directory and it acts like a directory". -- Daniel