From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262547AbTJGRz7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:55:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262550AbTJGRz7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:55:59 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:39915 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262547AbTJGRz4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:55:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:55:47 -0700 From: Greg KH To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: devfs vs. udev Message-ID: <20031007175547.GE1956@kroah.com> Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 04:07:25PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > 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. There's no "rewriting from scratch" happening here. Although Christoph's devfs changes in the 2.6 kernel tree were a major improvement on the quality of the devfs interface (within the kernel code), there are still unfixable devfs bugs in the code. thanks, greg k-h