Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:09:06 +0200 | From | Helge Hafting <> | Subject | Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 |
| |
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@hist.no> wrote: > > >>Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: >> >> >> >>>devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it >>>would have to be the only /dev filesystem. >>>But no, we like choices, so we have chaos. >>>Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos. >>> >>>Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that >>>thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions. >>>One fs for /dev. And it works great. >>> >>>Sorry for bit of trolling. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it >>was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it. >>No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same >>job, and more. >> >> > >udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is >at least silly. > > Well, devfs had devfsd - a userspace tool . . .
>I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace >daemon. But FS is out of question the least one. > >I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs. > I believe it had soemthing to do with the design - in order to fix it you had to rewrite it almost from scratch. People work on whatever they want to, and devfs wasn't it.
>Maybe because people >didn't want to go to devfs only. But still to have classic /dev. It's >also silly, because person writing driver needs to choose between, or >implement all. That's more than bad. Once I have loads of time, and no >work in KDE, I can take over devfs happily :-) > > Go ahead! Perhaps you get it right. Then you'll have to convince users of udev (or plain old /dev) that your way is better.
Helge Hafting - 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/
| |