Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 09:44 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:57:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Apart from obvious/known inefficiencies, it works fine over here :P
> >
> > Any way, if you are serious, what make you consider it broken (no,
> > not talking about personal preferences/phobias 8)
>
> There's unsolvable design issues in the way devfsd communication works
> (with the last two patches the holes are closed as much as possible)
Could you elaborate?
> and it's fundamentally flawed by putting device name policy into
> the kernel. And then there's of course certain implementation quality
> issues...
>
> We have udev now which solves what devfs tried to solve without that
> issues so people should switch to that ASAP. That doesn't mean we
> can simply rip it out because people started to rely on the non-standard
> device names, but it's use is pretty much discouraged in 2.6.
How does udev avoid these complications?
If udev doesn't have those issues, why can't they be fixed for devfsd?
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST