From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263595AbTLXLd5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:33:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263596AbTLXLd5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:33:57 -0500 Received: from dyn-213-36-225-201.ppp.tiscali.fr ([213.36.225.201]:31500 "EHLO nsbm.kicks-ass.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263595AbTLXLd4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:33:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:33:26 +0100 From: Witukind To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: DevFS vs. udev Message-Id: <20031224123326.2e8989ff.witukind@nsbm.kicks-ass.org> In-Reply-To: <20031224034121.GH4176@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20031223215910.GA15946@kroah.com> <20031223183820.5b297c50.akpm@osdl.org> <20031224034121.GH4176@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-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 On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:41:21 +0000 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 06:38:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > 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. > > Switching internals to ramfs won't be enough, though. There are > problems with devfs API that can't be solved by work on internals - > lifetime rules for devfs nodes make no sense. Take a look at the > insertion/removal primitives and think of the lifetime rules they > create for directories and user-created nodes. _That_ is independent > from the way you implement the internals (and sanitized version of the > interface won't fit into use of ramfs, BTW). What's the difference that prevents Linux from having a "good" devfs since FreeBSD is happy with this feature? -- Jabber: heimdal@jabber.org