From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265129AbTLWNCa (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:02:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265132AbTLWNCa (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:02:30 -0500 Received: from mail.aei.ca ([206.123.6.14]:60147 "EHLO aeimail.aei.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265129AbTLWNCZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:02:25 -0500 From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: linux-kernel Subject: Re: DevFS vs. udev Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:02:19 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.93 References: <1072181538.672.23.camel@nomade> <1072183068.1204.2.camel@ham> In-Reply-To: <1072183068.1204.2.camel@ham> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <200312230802.19901.edt@aei.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On December 23, 2003 07:37 am, Marcelo Bezerra wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 09:12, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > Le mar 23/12/2003 à 12:51, Bradley W. Allen a écrit : > > > > > DevFS was written by an articulate person who solved a lot of > > > problems. udev sounds more like a thug who's smug about winning, > > > not explaining himself, saying things like "oh, the other guy > > > disappeared, so who cares, you have to use my code, too bad it sucks". > > > > [...] > > > > > I've spent two hours on this problem, and that's absurd; > > > > > > Man, you've convinced me ! > > You've spent *two* hours on this problem ? Woah, these K-H and Viro > > guys must be dorks if they don't subscribe to your theories. Who are > > they to think their opinion matters more than yours, who spent *two* > > hours on this problem ? > > > > Are you the new DevFS's maintainer ? > > In spite you trying to make him sound foolish, I still think he has some > good points. DevFS works great and it never did something that was > broken for me, so I see no point in replacing it. Maybe Greg K-H and Al > Viro can step in an enlighten us once and for all. They have. There are technical reasons. From a technical point of view devfs is _broken_ and cannot be fixed without major efforts. It has be discovered that things can be done in user space (udev 10 had to be slowed down - it was too fast and the kernel was not keeping up...). So devfs was made obsolete. Not listening or like the reasons does not change them. Ed Tomlinson