From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262177AbTJGOX6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:23:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262152AbTJGOX6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:23:58 -0400 Received: from 24-216-47-19.charter.com ([24.216.47.19]:44459 "EHLO wally.rdlg.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262177AbTJGOX4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:23:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:23:49 -0400 From: "Robert L. Harris" To: M?ns Rullg?rd Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: devfs vs. udev Message-ID: <20031007142349.GX1223@rdlg.net> Mail-Followup-To: M?ns Rullg?rd , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eGyD7iWN192kf2IJ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --eGyD7iWN192kf2IJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thus spake M?ns Rullg?rd (mru@users.sourceforge.net): > Andreas Jellinghaus writes: >=20 > >> I noticed this in the help text for devfs in 2.6.0-test6: > >>=20 > >> Note that devfs has been obsoleted by udev, > > > > devfs works fine, lists all devices, and obsoletes makedev. >=20 > That's my experience. Same here but read on. > > udev needs patching for several issues, current sysfs only exports > > many but by far not all devices, and because of that makedev > > is still needed to create an initial /dev. > > > > in short: devfs works fine. udev has quite a way to go. > > so marking devfs obsolete was done too soon by far. but >=20 > Exactly my point. >=20 > I'd also like an explanation of the rationale behind the switch. > devfs works and is stable. Why replace it with an incomplete fragile > userspace solution? I recall reading something about the original > author not updating devfs recently, but I can't see why that requires > rewriting it from scratch. As a pro-devfs person I felt the same and hate to say it but "read the archives". Someone gave a good writeup on the problems with devfs and how udev will (eventually) solve them. I just hope udev can give a look/feel similar to devfs as I have quite a few machines already in production configured for devfs and really like the manageablility. :wq! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. Life is not a destination, it's a journey. Microsoft produces 15 car pileups on the highway. Don't stop traffic to stand and gawk at the tragedy. --eGyD7iWN192kf2IJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/gsx18+1vMONE2jsRAnJFAKDJuxfPcC9/DTqOacj5pDtKbGfUowCgiz42 +qIirVmE1CJDydZmwq1ockU= =HRY1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eGyD7iWN192kf2IJ--