Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:24:57 -0800 | From | Mike Bell <> | Subject | Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user |
| |
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:52:51PM -0500, Chris Friesen wrote: > What names would you use for your device files? This is the key > difference. With udev it gets a notification that says "I have a new > block device", it then looks it up, applies the rules, and creates a new > entry. The whole point is to move the naming scheme into userspace for > easier management.
Why does it make management easier to have no predictable name for a device?
> You could have the kernel export a simple devfs with a hardcoded naming > scheme based on similar ideas as what is in sysfs (which would then make > sysfs and the daemon optional for tiny embedded setups), but the only > advantage over just exporting the information in sysfs is to save a few > bytes at the cost of yet another filesystem to maintain.
I think the space savings are a pretty good reason alone. Add to that the fact I think devfs would be a good idea even if it cost MORE memory... You can mount a devfs on your RO root instead of needing to mount a tmpfs on /dev and then run udev on that. A devfs gives consistant names for devices in addition to the user's preferred user-space dictated naming scheme. A devfs means even with dynamic majors/minors, even if you have new hardware in your system, your /dev at least has the devices it needs. - 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/
| |