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@???





Never mind the mechanisms for now.
May I ask what all this complexity is supposed to accomplish?

-- hendrik
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@???
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng