From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262794AbTLWWaP (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:30:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262795AbTLWWaO (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:30:14 -0500 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([141.154.95.10]:46310 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262794AbTLWWaJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:30:09 -0500 Subject: RE: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV From: Rob Love To: hzhong@cisco.com Cc: "'Jari Soderholm'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <008401c3c9a3$0d11abe0$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com> References: <008401c3c9a3$0d11abe0$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072218603.6987.57.camel@fur> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:30:04 -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 17:21, Hua Zhong wrote: > But I do have sth fair to say about this "unmaintained" part. > > From my memory, at some point in time, somebody (Al Viro?) reviewed > devfs code and flamed the author in public (klml), throwing lots of bad > impolite words to him, which I think was the biggest reason that the > author stopped maintaining it. This was one of the projects that got > killed by flames, or improper handling with flames (another one that > comes to mind is CML2). > > Correct (but not flame :-) me if I am wrong. Well, Al definitely shot forth many flames over devfs, for sure :) I do not know the time line of the flames vs. any decisions made by Richard, though. Some flamage was definitely earlier, when Richard was active, and some flames were definitely after Richard scaled back his kernel development. And, yes, Al flames very hard and a bit rude -- but I have never seen him wrong, that is for sure ;-) So I cannot comment over _why_ defvs is unmaintained, but that is not the point: either way, it stands that devfs is unmaintained. That is a problem in and of itself. Rob Love