Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: devfs to be obsloted by udev? | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:19:02 +0200 |
| |
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/
| |