From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263518AbTLXCia (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:38:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263513AbTLXCia (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:38:30 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:53914 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263518AbTLXCiV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:38:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:38:20 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ian Kent Cc: greg@kroah.com, ULMO@Q.NET, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: DevFS vs. udev Message-Id: <20031223183820.5b297c50.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20031223215910.GA15946@kroah.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ian Kent wrote: > > However, if Andrew wants it gone from the kernel there is no point. I do not. devfs shall remain in 2.6 and shall continue to be supported. Richard has disappeared but Andrey Borzenkov understands devfs well and performed valuable work on it during 2.5 development. Nor would I recommend that devfs be removed early from 2.7.x. We should wait until the proposed udev/sysfs solutions have matured in 2.6 and have proven themselves in the field. Only then will we be in a position to confirm that devfs can be removed without causing some people unacceptable levels of grief. There is no rush. And yes, there are architectural/cleanliness issues with devfs. In 2.5 Adam Richter totally reinventing devfs's internals, basing it around the ramfs infrastructure. If we elect to retain devfs in 2.8 then that effort should be resurrected. Now would be a good time for someone to feed the whole thing through indent though.