Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4]

[Rob Love]

On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 11:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> I disagree. For fully static devices like the mem devices the udev indirection
> is completely superflous.

I see your point, so I really do not want to argue, but here is my
rationale for why everything should be done seamlessly via udev:

In a nutshell, we want a single, clean, automatic solution to device
naming.  If some "static" devices are hard coded, we introduce a special
case.  Why do that?  Why have special cases when udev can seamlessly
manage the whole thing?  Say we decide to remove /dev/foo in the kernel
- that should be reflected in udev simply by way of it no longer being
created on boot.

That is my thoughts.  I dislike special casing.  And without it, udev
can seamlessly handle everything, automatically.

But I _do_ see your point.  It is silly to generate a hotplug event for
a static device on every boot, etc. etc.  But I think the cleanliness of
not special casing certain devices in the udev solution is worth it.

	Rob Love


-
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/