[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:0.091 / U:6.356 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site