From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262126AbTLIKjC (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:39:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262186AbTLIKjC (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:39:02 -0500 Received: from host213-160-108-25.dsl.vispa.com ([213.160.108.25]:58820 "HELO cenedra.office") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262126AbTLIKi7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:38:59 -0500 From: Andrew Walrond To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: State of devfs in 2.6? Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:37:20 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200312081536.26022.andrew@walrond.org> <200312081559.04771.andrew@walrond.org> <20031208233840.GD31370@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20031208233840.GD31370@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312091037.20770.andrew@walrond.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org My initial query has thrown up lots of interesting debate :) I, like most people I suspect, love the concept of a complete auto-populated dev directory, and not having to MAKEDEV. devfs provided this, but like most people who read LKML, I stopped using it when it's problems were discussed. I really hope udev lives up to its promise, unlike devfs. Manually creating / dev just annoys me for no apparent reason other than it's plain inelegance I suppose. Andrew Walrond