Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:05:13 -0700 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Larger dev_t |
| |
Alan Cox writes: > > > One thing I certainly miss: DevFS is not mandatory (yet). > > > > That's "only" due to the fact that DevFS is an insanely racy and > > instable > > piece of CRAP. I'm unhappy it's there anyway... > > It certainly seems to have some race conditions but other than that > and the slight problem it puts policy in the kernel it seems ok. I'd > prefer it was userspace and implemented via /sbin/hotplug - but that > isnt possible yet and opens a whole other set of interesting races > to ponder
Yes, devfs has some races. They are in the process of getting fixed. Yes, it's taken a long time (moving house twice in 6 months and several travel trips take their toll on productivity).
However, a large number of people run devfs on small to large systems, and these "races" aren't causing problems. People tell me it's quite stable. I run devfs on my systems, and not once have I had a problem due to devfs "races". So I feel it's quite unfair to paint such a dire picture (I'm referring to Martin's comments here, not Alan's).
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/
| |