From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Helge Hafting Subject: Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4 Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:09:06 +0200 Message-ID: <413ECC32.8070509@hist.no> References: <200408290004.i7T04DEO003646@localhost.localdomain> <20040901224513.GM31934@mail.shareable.org> <20040903082256.GA17629@kroah.com> <2f4958ff04090301326e7302c1@mail.gmail.com> <41383142.4080201@hist.no> <2f4958ff04090302141bc222e5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Greg KH , Jamie Lokier , Horst von Brand , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com To: =?UTF-8?B?R3J6ZWdvcnogSmHFm2tpZXdpY3o=?= In-Reply-To: <2f4958ff04090302141bc222e5@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: >On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > > >>Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: >> >> >> >>>devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it >>>would have to be the only /dev filesystem. >>>But no, we like choices, so we have chaos. >>>Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos. >>> >>>Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that >>>thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions. >>>One fs for /dev. And it works great. >>> >>>Sorry for bit of trolling. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it >>was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it. >>No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same >>job, and more. >> >> > >udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is >at least silly. > > Well, devfs had devfsd - a userspace tool . . . >I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace >daemon. But FS is out of question the least one. > >I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs. > I believe it had soemthing to do with the design - in order to fix it you had to rewrite it almost from scratch. People work on whatever they want to, and devfs wasn't it. >Maybe because people >didn't want to go to devfs only. But still to have classic /dev. It's >also silly, because person writing driver needs to choose between, or >implement all. That's more than bad. Once I have loads of time, and no >work in KDE, I can take over devfs happily :-) > > Go ahead! Perhaps you get it right. Then you'll have to convince users of udev (or plain old /dev) that your way is better. Helge Hafting