From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261879AbTLHXDY (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:03:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261885AbTLHXDY (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:03:24 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:10456 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261879AbTLHXDW (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:03:22 -0500 From: Andreas Jellinghaus Subject: Re: State of devfs in 2.6? Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:04:08 +0100 User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity. (Debian GNU/Linux)) Message-Id: References: <200312081536.26022.andrew@walrond.org> <20031208154256.GV19856@holomorphy.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:50:45 +0000, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > I would say it's deprecated at the very least. sysfs and udev are > supposed to provide equivalent functionality, albeit by a somewhat > different mechanism. huh? aj@simulacron:/dev$ find -type c -mount |grep -v pty |wc -l 164 aj@simulacron:/dev$ find -type b |wc -l 157 aj@simulacron:/dev$ find /sys/ -name dev |wc -l 250 After ignoring .devfsd we are left with 70 devices missing: - 15 floppy devices - 5 input/ devices - full, kmem, kmsg, mem, null, port, random, urandom, zero - printers/0 - 5 misc/ devices - 12 snd/ devices - 5 sound/ devices - 18 vcc/ devices I wouldn't call udev deprecated, unless a newer kernel has the essential devices, too. And is there a udev version that can do devfs names? last time I checked only lanana names were supported. Some distributions were quite happy to move from /dev and lanana to devfs with better names. I doubt everyone will rush to udev with lanana names, and re-introducing makedev for devices not represented in sysfs doesn't sound very nice either. So 2.8.* might be a nice time frame for dropping devfs, or at least give sysfs and udev a few months to catch up on the issues mentioned. Andreas