Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user

[Mike Bell <kernel@mikebell.org>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:12:42AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> No, that is not true.  devfs exports the device node itself.  It does
> not just export the major:minor number.

That's a pretty minor difference, from the kernel's point of view. It's
basically putting the same numbers in different fields.

> devfs also does not export the position within the entire device tree,
> which sysfs does.  

devfs tried to do just that. sysfs does it better though. I don't see
what that has to do with my point.

> They are two completely different filesystems, doing two completely
> different things.  Please do not confuse them.

sysfs and devfs are very different. I said they both accomplish one
common goal, sysfs for udev and devfs for devfsd.

> But the main point is that udev is in userspace, and devfs is in the
> kernel.  You forgot that :)

No I didn't. udev is userspace, devfsd is userspace. devfs is kernel
space, sysfs is kernel space. They're the same.

> sysfs has no such "naming policy".  It merely exports the name that the
> kernel happened to give the device, using the LSB naming scheme.  It
> does not rely on driver substems to create subdirectories for their
> devices, nor export their own nested naming schemes.

But sysfs is still setting naming policy in the kernel. Because you
didn't write the kernelspace static names in question, they don't exist?

> sysfs merely exports the info that the kernel knows about a device, by
> which udev creates a device node.

devfs merely exports information the kernel knows, by which devfsd can
create device nodes.

> devfs exports the device node, and then lets devfsd override that node
> and create other stuff.

And sysfs exports files that are (from a kernel point of view) very
nearly a device node.

> Please also do not overlook the fragility of the devfs->devfsd
> interface.  It is binary, relies on 1 sender and 1 receiver, and doesn't
> allow any other programs to get this info.

Didn't say the current devfs was a good implementation of the concept.
Said I liked a devfs-like concept.

> But the point is that udev does not require such a interface as devfs to
> get the job done.  devfsd does.

Yes it does, it requires sysfs.

> Providing specific examples of what you find lacking in udev would be
> constructive.  Saying, "I don't like it as it doesn't feel right to me"
> is merely wanting to pick a fight.

udev tries to do the job without a devfs. I said that already. I think
there should be a kernel exported filesystem with kernel-created device
nodes, and that udev's role should continue to do something similar to what it
does now (manage permissions and user-supplied names), only on that
kernel-exported filesystem.