Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:41:21 +0000 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: DevFS vs. udev |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |