Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4] | From | Martin Schlemmer <> | Date | Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:02:00 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-12-25 at 22:57, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:47:44 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> > > I disagree. For fully static devices like the mem devices the udev > >> > > indirection is completely superflous. > >> > > >> > If sysfs does not contain data on mem devices, we will need makedev. > >> > > >> > devfs did replace makedev. until udev can create all devices, > >> > it would need to re-introduce makedev. > >> > >> So what? > >> > > > > So maybe suggest an solution rather than shooting one down all the > > time (which do seem logical, and is only apposed by one person currently > > - namely you =). > > Nah, most of us just trust Christoph to fight the good fight for us ;-) >
heh =)
> I for one certainly agree with him that for static stuff, we don't need > (or want) udev. For inherently hotplug stuff like USB cameras, or large > SCSI raid arrays, it's nice, but not for basic things like mem devices > and the disk devices I'm booting from - it's just added complexity. >
Well, its inclusion do not mean you have to use it - you have to physically walk all the classes in /sys to get udev to create the nodes, as they are already there when booted. And as the code is only a few lines for each device, it is not much overhead to get:
1) a full sysfs tree of all physical and 'virtual' (?) devices.
2) Optional feature to generate /dev with one simple script for those that want it, which should be the less complex option at initramfs time.
> If it works as is, don't screw with it. >
With an already populated /dev, sure :/
Thanks,
-- Martin Schlemmer [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |