From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263915AbTIBUSW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:18:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263916AbTIBUSW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:18:22 -0400 Received: from mion.elka.pw.edu.pl ([194.29.160.35]:26825 "EHLO mion.elka.pw.edu.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263915AbTIBUSU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:18:20 -0400 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Ed Sweetman Subject: Re: devfs to be obsloted by udev? Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:19:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: greg@kroah.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <3F54A4AC.1020709@wmich.edu> In-Reply-To: <3F54A4AC.1020709@wmich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309022219.02549.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org initramfs On Tuesday 02 of September 2003 16:09, Ed Sweetman wrote: > It appears that devfs is to be replaced by the use of udev in the not so > distant future. I'm not sure how it's supposed to replace a static /dev > situaton seeing as how it is a userspace daemon. Is it not supposed to > replace /dev even when it's completed? I dont see the real benefit in > having two directories that basically give the same info. Right now we > have something like that with proc and sysfs although not everything in > proc makes sense to be in sysfs and both are virtual fs's where as /dev > is a static fs on the disk that takes up space and inodes and includes > way too many files that a system may not use. If udev is to take over > the job of devfs, how will modules and drivers work that require device > files to be present in order to work since undoubtedly the udev daemon > will have to wait until the kernel is done booting before being run. > > I'm just not following how it is going to replace devfs and thus why > devfs is being abandoned as mentioned in akpm's patchset. Or as it > seems, already has been abandoned.