Re: DevFS vs. udev

[viro]

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).
-
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/