Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:51:43 +0800 (WST) | From | Ian Kent <> | Subject | Re: devfs vs. udev |
| |
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Andreas Jellinghaus <aj@dungeon.inka.de> writes: > > >> I noticed this in the help text for devfs in 2.6.0-test6: > >> > >> Note that devfs has been obsoleted by udev, > > > > devfs works fine, lists all devices, and obsoletes makedev. > > That's my experience. > > > udev needs patching for several issues, current sysfs only exports > > many but by far not all devices, and because of that makedev > > is still needed to create an initial /dev. > > > > in short: devfs works fine. udev has quite a way to go. > > so marking devfs obsolete was done too soon by far. but > > Exactly my point. > > I'd also like an explanation of the rationale behind the switch. > devfs works and is stable. Why replace it with an incomplete fragile > userspace solution? I recall reading something about the original > author not updating devfs recently, but I can't see why that requires > rewriting it from scratch.
Sorry to interrupt.
I have had a look at the code and looked around a bit and I'm left with two questions.
1) What are the problems with devfs. I can't seem to find anything specific?
2) I believe udev does not support for an increased number of anonymous devices for such things as NFS and autofs mounts. I can't see anything in the kernel (2.6) to improve this either. Can devfs provide improvements for this without to much pain?
--
,-._|\ Ian Kent / \ Perth, Western Australia *_.--._/ E-mail: raven@themaw.net v Web: http://themaw.net/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |