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    [W:0.019 / U:0.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site