On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 15:58 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Matt Burgess wrote: > > This passes a boot test with no changes required to the bootscripts > > or fstab. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Bruce's and Bryan's comments in > > the ticket, but this to me suggests that Udev >= 176 doesn't require > > a devtmpfs mounted on /dev > > That's very strange, given this commit included in -176: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=220893b3cbdbf8932f95c44811b169a8f0d33939 > > (see udev-node.c), which removes all the mknod() calls. If you don't > have a devtmpfs mounted at /dev (but rather just a tmpfs), I don't see > how anything will work anymore. :-) > > > (note that I do have devtmpfs support in the kernel, but I've added > > nothing to fstab). > > Did you edit the udev script to use devtmpfs instead of tmpfs, possibly?
You give me too much credit, Bryan :) What I actually did was to include DEVTMPFS_MOUNT in my kernel .config which automagically mounts devtmpfs to /dev. I could try testing without that option enabled and watch things break, but I'll trust you and Kay when you say that is what will happen. So, I think I'd rather be explicit in our configuration in LFS, and put an entry into /etc/fstab, even though it's not strictly required iff you have DEVTMPFS_MOUNT selected in your kernel config. As a possibly interesting aside, even though the DEVTMPFS_MOUNT seemingly does the right thing here, it does not cause /dev to be listed by either 'df' or 'mount'. I'm assuming that the /etc/fstab entry will result in the expected output, but will confirm after further testing tomorrow. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
