Re: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster

[Eric W. Biederman]

> I don't understand. Udev applies the final policy including
> permissions/ownership, just as before. There is no differrence. It's
> just that you can bring up a box without complex userspace to
> bootstrap /dev. And that's a big win on its own.

udev is too complex to use?  That sounds like a userspace bug.

This I guess is where I am baffled.   The argument for devtmpfs
always seem to boil down to: udev sucks let's write some kernel
code instead.

I have been trying to ask for a long time why we can't just fix
udev to not suck. 

>  And things like
> "modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0" will just work, which it doesn't
> with todays async udev. Again, please make yourself familiar how
> things work, and what the problems are.

I guess I don't understand why 
modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0 is an interesting case.
When you can just as easily do:
modprobe loop; udevadm settle; losetup /dev/loop0.

Eric
--
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/