[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Location of shmfs; devfs automagics
    On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
    > > I guess the current configuration will be a major problem for upgrades.
    > Yeah... Anyone using USB or a whole bunch of other "loose ends"
    > are in for a rude awakening. "Loose ends" was someone else's term for
    > it after I rolled devfs support into the Computone drivers and mentioned
    > a lot of broken support even for things listed in devices.txt. Those
    > updates were submitted but haven't even made it into the main kernel
    > sources yet, so I'm pretty confident that devfs support is going to be
    > really broken, when 2.4 is released, with a lot of drivers which just
    > don't support it. There are a lot of things missing devfs support now
    > and, if that isn't sufficient to get changes incorporated, it's going to
    > be missing in the 2.4 rollout.

    I quite disagree. I use numerous [different] USB devices and I don't have
    any problems at all. On the contrary, without devfs I have the hassle of
    figuring out which new mknod I need to update /dev. With devfs I haven't
    had to worry about anything.

    > Even after support for devfs is rolled into the drivers, the user
    > space devsfd daemon is missing a lot of links from the traditional names
    > to the devfs names. That means that a lot of existing apps and
    > configurations are going to break, even if you are running devfsd. It
    > creates a real uncomfortable critical dependency between enabling devfs
    > and switching all of your configurations. Upgrades are going to be hell
    > with lots of little devils in lots of little details.

    I have the standard makecompat for devfsd. I have -one- application which
    breaks. X. Compiling a kernel with devfs and putting devfsd onto a machine
    which was sans devfs is a breeze. Compile, put devfsd and conf files on,
    edit boot script. Reboot. All is well.

    > The option of leaving /dev as is, then mounting devfs on /devfs and
    > providing appropriate symlinks from one to the other answers a lot of those
    > problems, but not all of them. It's a compromise that keeps the pain level
    > of the transition to a minimum. It's also the way Sun handled this
    > situation on Solaris, except there it's /dev and /devices where /devices
    > has the magical entry points as defined by the device drivers.

    I find mounting over /dev more enjoyable, easier, and overall more


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.022 / U:15.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site