Andrew:
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.
I would prefer to keep devfs around as well, but most of my embedded
systems have enough RAM to put a primitive /dev tree in tmpfs using a
linuxrc script at boot. The workarounds for the userland requirements
of udev are a little less clear to me, but I'm not sure they're
insurmountable yet for anything except the smallest embedded systems,
since Busybox appears to have some udev support available now.
I think that devfs and udev appeal to different audiences, hence I don't
think you can say that the "world will be a better place" with one or
the other. It would be nice to find a way to have the two coexist
peacefully...
Case in point. I'm going to udev reluctantly; all my embedded work
based on earlier kernels used devfs exclusively.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
So what part of:
$ make oldconfig clean dep zImage
do you not understand?
[email protected]
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
