Messages in this thread | | | From | Ed Tomlinson <> | Subject | Re: DevFS vs. udev | Date | Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:02:19 -0500 |
| |
On December 23, 2003 07:37 am, Marcelo Bezerra wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 09:12, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > Le mar 23/12/2003 à 12:51, Bradley W. Allen a écrit : > > > > > DevFS was written by an articulate person who solved a lot of > > > problems. udev sounds more like a thug who's smug about winning, > > > not explaining himself, saying things like "oh, the other guy > > > disappeared, so who cares, you have to use my code, too bad it sucks". > > > > [...] > > > > > I've spent two hours on this problem, and that's absurd; > > > > > > Man, you've convinced me ! > > You've spent *two* hours on this problem ? Woah, these K-H and Viro > > guys must be dorks if they don't subscribe to your theories. Who are > > they to think their opinion matters more than yours, who spent *two* > > hours on this problem ? > > > > Are you the new DevFS's maintainer ? > > In spite you trying to make him sound foolish, I still think he has some > good points. DevFS works great and it never did something that was > broken for me, so I see no point in replacing it. Maybe Greg K-H and Al > Viro can step in an enlighten us once and for all.
They have. There are technical reasons. From a technical point of view devfs is _broken_ and cannot be fixed without major efforts. It has be discovered that things can be done in user space (udev 10 had to be slowed down - it was too fast and the kernel was not keeping up...). So devfs was made obsolete.
Not listening or like the reasons does not change them.
Ed Tomlinson - 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/
| |