lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: udev and devfs - The final word
Date
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:32:58 +0000, Greg KH wrote:
> The Problems:
> 1) A static /dev is unwieldy and big. It would be nice to only show
> the /dev entries for the devices we actually have running in the
> system.

last time i checked, devices for physical resources are only a part
of the devices in /dev. the other big part are those devices for
virtual resources, like virtual master/slave tty, network block devices,
loop devices, virtual consoles, etc.

neither devfs nor udev handle the virtual part. only devpts does,
and only for one special class of virtual devices. and usb devices
are neither handled by devfs nor udev, but by usbfs.

Actually udev is a regression:
- devfs was a first efford at a sane /dev naming policy, udev returns to
the old and cryptic lsb device naming.
- devfs made makedev obsolete, udev doesn't work without it / can
currently not create all devices because of missing sysfs support.

Ignore this mail if you want, but people might be unhappy with udev
because of these regressions and not caring about it will not improve
the situation.

Andreas

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.087 / U:1.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site