From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265947AbUBJRWZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:22:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266066AbUBJRTD (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:19:03 -0500 Received: from h24-82-88-106.vf.shawcable.net ([24.82.88.106]:58508 "HELO tinyvaio.nome.ca") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266064AbUBJRNK (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:13:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:13:39 -0800 From: Mike Bell To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user Message-ID: <20040210171337.GK4421@tinyvaio.nome.ca> References: <20040210113417.GD4421@tinyvaio.nome.ca> <20040210170157.GA27421@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040210170157.GA27421@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:01:57AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > Did you read: > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev_vs_devfs Yes, I've read everything since the original OLS one, and liked udev less and less with each one. > But that is not what sysfs does. And sysfs will not do this. So this > point is moot. No, you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that sysfs /should/ export device files. I'm saying that sysfs exporting type/major/minor as files is not really that different from exporting full-fledged device files. Making udev a sort of ugly-hack devfsd.