Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user

[Chris Friesen]

Mike Bell wrote:

> 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.

What names would you use for your device files?  This is the key 
difference.  With udev it gets a notification that says "I have a new 
block device", it then looks it up, applies the rules, and creates a new 
entry.  The whole point is to move the naming scheme into userspace for 
easier management.

You could have the kernel export a simple devfs with a hardcoded naming 
scheme based on similar ideas as what is in sysfs (which would then make 
sysfs and the daemon optional for tiny embedded setups), but the only 
advantage over just exporting the information in sysfs is to save a few 
bytes at the cost of yet another filesystem to maintain.

Chris

--
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/