From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263299AbTLXCEa (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:04:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263298AbTLXCEa (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:04:30 -0500 Received: from [141.154.95.10] ([141.154.95.10]:26856 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263299AbTLXCEZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:04:25 -0500 Subject: Re: DevFS vs. udev From: Rob Love To: Ian Kent Cc: Greg KH , akpm@osdl.org, "Bradley W. Allen" , Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072231437.3826.3.camel@fur> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:03:57 -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 20:52, Ian Kent wrote: > It certainly seems like a good project for a someone, such as myself, that > is new to kernel development. Please take no offense to this, but it is an awful project for someone new to kernel development. Plenty of knowledgeable/semi-knowledgeable kernel hackers looked at devfs and given up on it. Despite what some people say about Richard, he is a good guy, and he did not succeed either. devfs is hard to get right and, worse, you will be starting with a bad base of code that I would not want to touch with an 18.72 foot pole. Greg, via udev, has made it so easy to just back up, slowly, and walk away from devfs. devfs is not going anywhere in 2.6, I do not think, but let sleeping piles of crap sleep and let's just jettison this thing as soon as we can. Just my two cents - I am warning you ;) Rob Love