Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4]

[Rob Love <rml@ximian.com>]

On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 11:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> I disagree. For fully static devices like the mem devices the udev indirection
> is completely superflous.

I see your point, so I really do not want to argue, but here is my
rationale for why everything should be done seamlessly via udev:

In a nutshell, we want a single, clean, automatic solution to device
naming.  If some "static" devices are hard coded, we introduce a special
case.  Why do that?  Why have special cases when udev can seamlessly
manage the whole thing?  Say we decide to remove /dev/foo in the kernel
- that should be reflected in udev simply by way of it no longer being
created on boot.

That is my thoughts.  I dislike special casing.  And without it, udev
can seamlessly handle everything, automatically.

But I _do_ see your point.  It is silly to generate a hotplug event for
a static device on every boot, etc. etc.  But I think the cleanliness of
not special casing certain devices in the udev solution is worth it.

	Rob Love




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id\x1278&alloc_id371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel