From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Love Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:56:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4] Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org 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_id78&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