The reasons for a dynamic device manger were simple:
a) Actually makes sure that the device really exists, and is connected rather
than having a static /dev entry that is essentially worthless.
b) A dynamic manager provides a consistent way for naming device nodes, rather
than having administrators create nodes willy-nilly.
c) Provides a persistent API for managing the devices programmically, so that
you can add device capabilities to your user programs in a consistent fashion.
That’s more than enough reason to not go back to the old way of doing things,
although it should be noted that you can create a system library to manage
static nodes in a similar fashion. Most of the reasoning behind the most used
managers is to allow “hotswapping” without manually mounting. I don’t have a
problem with this, as long as the security implications are considered in
advance.
From: Hendrik Boom
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:44 AM
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Never mind the mechanisms for now.
May I ask what all this complexity is supposed to accomplish?
-- hendrik
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
