Re: DevFS vs. udev

[Witukind]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:41:21 +0000
viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxx
-
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/