Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4] | From | Rob Love <> | Date | Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:56:34 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 11:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I disagree. For fully static devices like the mem devices the udev indirection > is completely superflous.
I see your point, so I really do not want to argue, but here is my rationale for why everything should be done seamlessly via udev:
In a nutshell, we want a single, clean, automatic solution to device naming. If some "static" devices are hard coded, we introduce a special case. Why do that? Why have special cases when udev can seamlessly manage the whole thing? Say we decide to remove /dev/foo in the kernel - that should be reflected in udev simply by way of it no longer being created on boot.
That is my thoughts. I dislike special casing. And without it, udev can seamlessly handle everything, automatically.
But I _do_ see your point. It is silly to generate a hotplug event for a static device on every boot, etc. etc. But I think the cleanliness of not special casing certain devices in the udev solution is worth it.
Rob Love
- 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/
| |