Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:33:26 +0100 | From | Witukind <> | Subject | Re: DevFS vs. udev |
| |
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:41:21 +0000 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> 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).
What's the difference that prevents Linux from having a "good" devfs since FreeBSD is happy with this feature?
-- Jabber: heimdal@jabber.org - 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/
| |