Re: devfs to be obsloted by udev?

[Justin Cormack]

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 21:19, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> initramfs

which seems to have been postponed to 2.7.


> On Tuesday 02 of September 2003 16:09, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> > It appears that devfs is to be replaced by the use of udev in the not so
> > distant future.  I'm not sure how it's supposed to replace a static /dev
> > situaton seeing as how it is a userspace daemon.  Is it not supposed to
> > replace /dev even when it's completed?  I dont see the real benefit in
> > having two directories that basically give the same info.  Right now we
> > have something like that with proc and sysfs although not everything in
> > proc makes sense to be in sysfs and both are virtual fs's where as /dev
> > is a static fs on the disk that takes up space and inodes and includes
> > way too many files that a system may not use.  If udev is to take over
> > the job of devfs, how will modules and drivers work that require device
> > files to be present in order to work since undoubtedly the udev daemon
> > will have to wait until the kernel is done booting before being run.
> >
> > I'm just not following how it is going to replace devfs and thus why
> > devfs is being abandoned as mentioned in akpm's patchset. Or as it
> > seems, already has been abandoned.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/