From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261830AbVFWBS5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:18:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261841AbVFWBS5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:18:57 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:25238 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261830AbVFWBSx (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:18:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:18:25 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Mike Bell Cc: greg@kroah.com, gregkh@suse.de, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git Message-Id: <20050622181825.204fbcb7.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050623010031.GB17453@mikebell.org> References: <20050621062926.GB15062@kroah.com> <20050620235403.45bf9613.akpm@osdl.org> <20050621151019.GA19666@kroah.com> <20050623010031.GB17453@mikebell.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Bell wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:10:19AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > There might be some complaints. But I doubt they would be from anyone > > running a -mm tree as those people kind of know the current status of > > things in the kernel. There have been numerous warnings as to the fact > > that this was going away, and I waited a _year_ to do this. > > I use -mm and I'm complaining. Thanks! > It breaks a lot of my embedded setups which have read-only storage only > and thus need /dev on devfs or tmpfs. Well that's quite a problem. We're certainly causing people such as yourself to take on quite a lot of work. But on the other hand we do want the kernel to progress sanely, and that sometimes involves taking things out. I don't have enough info to know whether the world would be a better place if we keep devfs, remove devfs or remove devfs even later on. I don't think anyone knows, which is why we're taking this little disable-it-and-see-who-shouts approach.