Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
On 07/18/05 10:12:29PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > Something's wondering me, though: > FreeBSD "just" (5.0) introduced devfs, so either they are behind The Facts > (see udev FAQ), or devfs (anylinux/anybsd) is not so bad after all. There's not much to wonder about here, the basic idea of devfs is a good one which is why udev was written. The problems expressed on lkml about devfs were with that specifically implementation, if a better implementation had been merged originally udev might have never been created. I really doubt FreeBSD took the Linux devfs code and integrated it with their kernel, so the fact that FreeBSD is using a devfs now simply means they like the idea of a dynamic /dev as well. > > > > Jan Engelhardt Jim. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 06:12, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > What is more news to me: > ( http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev-FAQ ) > Q: Why was devfs marked OBSOLETE if udev is not finished yet? > A: To quote Al Viro (Linux VFS kernel maintainer): > ==> - the devfs maintainer/author disappeared and stoped maintaining the > code Chased out by the same Al Viro, more like it. Not that I like devfs at all, but it's a shame to see such revisionism in an otherwise respectable document. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
>Greg KH writes: >> I do care about this, please don't think that. But here's my reasoning >> for why it needs to go: >[...] >> - original developer of devfs has publicly stated udev is a >>replacement. > >Well, that's news to me! What is more news to me: ( http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev-FAQ ) Q: Why was devfs marked OBSOLETE if udev is not finished yet? A: To quote Al Viro (Linux VFS kernel maintainer): ==> - the devfs maintainer/author disappeared and stoped maintaining the code So, if you allow the question, where [t.h.] have you been in the meantime? >> - clutter and mess >In the eye of the beholder. It's kernel code - I think the point is valid. >> - code is broken and unfixable >No proof. Never say never... *thumbs up* You could just become the maintainer of ndevfs. :) Something's wondering me, though: FreeBSD "just" (5.0) introduced devfs, so either they are behind The Facts (see udev FAQ), or devfs (anylinux/anybsd) is not so bad after all. Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
Greg KH writes: > I do care about this, please don't think that. But here's my reasoning > for why it needs to go: [...] > - original developer of devfs has publicly stated udev is a > replacement. Well, that's news to me! > - policy in the kernel. Like sysfs :-) > - clutter and mess In the eye of the beholder. > - code is broken and unfixable No proof. Never say never... Regards, Richard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
Greg KH writes: I do care about this, please don't think that. But here's my reasoning for why it needs to go: [...] - original developer of devfs has publicly stated udev is a replacement. Well, that's news to me! - policy in the kernel. Like sysfs :-) - clutter and mess In the eye of the beholder. - code is broken and unfixable No proof. Never say never... Regards, Richard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
Greg KH writes: I do care about this, please don't think that. But here's my reasoning for why it needs to go: [...] - original developer of devfs has publicly stated udev is a replacement. Well, that's news to me! What is more news to me: ( http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev-FAQ ) Q: Why was devfs marked OBSOLETE if udev is not finished yet? A: To quote Al Viro (Linux VFS kernel maintainer): == - the devfs maintainer/author disappeared and stoped maintaining the code So, if you allow the question, where [t.h.] have you been in the meantime? - clutter and mess In the eye of the beholder. It's kernel code - I think the point is valid. - code is broken and unfixable No proof. Never say never... *thumbs up* You could just become the maintainer of ndevfs. :) Something's wondering me, though: FreeBSD just (5.0) introduced devfs, so either they are behind The Facts (see udev FAQ), or devfs (anylinux/anybsd) is not so bad after all. Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 06:12, Jan Engelhardt wrote: What is more news to me: ( http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev-FAQ ) Q: Why was devfs marked OBSOLETE if udev is not finished yet? A: To quote Al Viro (Linux VFS kernel maintainer): == - the devfs maintainer/author disappeared and stoped maintaining the code Chased out by the same Al Viro, more like it. Not that I like devfs at all, but it's a shame to see such revisionism in an otherwise respectable document. Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git
On 07/18/05 10:12:29PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: Something's wondering me, though: FreeBSD just (5.0) introduced devfs, so either they are behind The Facts (see udev FAQ), or devfs (anylinux/anybsd) is not so bad after all. There's not much to wonder about here, the basic idea of devfs is a good one which is why udev was written. The problems expressed on lkml about devfs were with that specifically implementation, if a better implementation had been merged originally udev might have never been created. I really doubt FreeBSD took the Linux devfs code and integrated it with their kernel, so the fact that FreeBSD is using a devfs now simply means they like the idea of a dynamic /dev as well. Jan Engelhardt Jim. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
