From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262081AbTLWR6h (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262098AbTLWR6g (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:36 -0500 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([141.154.95.10]:40675 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262081AbTLWR4k (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:56:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4] From: Rob Love To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Greg KH , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20031223163904.A8589@infradead.org> References: <20031223002126.GA4805@kroah.com> <20031223002439.GB4805@kroah.com> <20031223002609.GC4805@kroah.com> <20031223131523.B6864@infradead.org> <1072193516.3472.3.camel@fur> <20031223163904.A8589@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072202194.3472.19.camel@fur> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:56:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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