lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: devfs to be obsloted by udev?
Date

initramfs

On Tuesday 02 of September 2003 16:09, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> It appears that devfs is to be replaced by the use of udev in the not so
> distant future. I'm not sure how it's supposed to replace a static /dev
> situaton seeing as how it is a userspace daemon. Is it not supposed to
> replace /dev even when it's completed? I dont see the real benefit in
> having two directories that basically give the same info. Right now we
> have something like that with proc and sysfs although not everything in
> proc makes sense to be in sysfs and both are virtual fs's where as /dev
> is a static fs on the disk that takes up space and inodes and includes
> way too many files that a system may not use. If udev is to take over
> the job of devfs, how will modules and drivers work that require device
> files to be present in order to work since undoubtedly the udev daemon
> will have to wait until the kernel is done booting before being run.
>
> I'm just not following how it is going to replace devfs and thus why
> devfs is being abandoned as mentioned in akpm's patchset. Or as it
> seems, already has been abandoned.

-
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/

initramfs

On Tuesday 02 of September 2003 16:09, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> It appears that devfs is to be replaced by the use of udev in the not so
> distant future. I'm not sure how it's supposed to replace a static /dev
> situaton seeing as how it is a userspace daemon. Is it not supposed to
> replace /dev even when it's completed? I dont see the real benefit in
> having two directories that basically give the same info. Right now we
> have something like that with proc and sysfs although not everything in
> proc makes sense to be in sysfs and both are virtual fs's where as /dev
> is a static fs on the disk that takes up space and inodes and includes
> way too many files that a system may not use. If udev is to take over
> the job of devfs, how will modules and drivers work that require device
> files to be present in order to work since undoubtedly the udev daemon
> will have to wait until the kernel is done booting before being run.
>
> I'm just not following how it is going to replace devfs and thus why
> devfs is being abandoned as mentioned in akpm's patchset. Or as it
> seems, already has been abandoned.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site