lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: DevFS vs. udev
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 06:38:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> And yes, there are architectural/cleanliness issues with devfs. In 2.5
> Adam Richter totally reinventing devfs's internals, basing it around the
> ramfs infrastructure. If we elect to retain devfs in 2.8 then that effort
> should be resurrected.

Switching internals to ramfs won't be enough, though. There are problems
with devfs API that can't be solved by work on internals - lifetime rules
for devfs nodes make no sense. Take a look at the insertion/removal
primitives and think of the lifetime rules they create for directories and
user-created nodes. _That_ is independent from the way you implement
the internals (and sanitized version of the interface won't fit into
use of ramfs, BTW).
-
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 13:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans