[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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

    > 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.019 / U:10.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site