lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4]
From
Date
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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.157 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site