Re: [PATCH] add sysfs mem device support [2/4]

[Martin Schlemmer <azarah@nosferatu.za.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1683 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-12-25 at 22:57, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:47:44 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> > > I disagree. For fully static devices like the mem devices the udev
> >> > > indirection is completely superflous.
> >> > 
> >> > If sysfs does not contain data on mem devices, we will need makedev.
> >> > 
> >> > devfs did replace makedev. until udev can create all devices,
> >> > it would need to re-introduce makedev.
> >> 
> >> So what?
> >> 
> > 
> > So maybe suggest an solution rather than shooting one down all the
> > time (which do seem logical, and is only apposed by one person currently
> > - namely you =).
> 
> Nah, most of us just trust Christoph to fight the good fight for us ;-)
> 

heh =)

> I for one certainly agree with him that for static stuff, we don't need 
> (or want) udev. For inherently hotplug stuff like USB cameras, or large 
> SCSI raid arrays, it's nice, but not for basic things like mem devices 
> and the disk devices I'm booting from - it's just added complexity.
> 

Well, its inclusion do not mean you have to use it - you have to
physically walk all the classes in /sys to get udev to create the nodes,
as they are already there when booted.  And as the code is only a few
lines for each device, it is not much overhead to get:

1) a full sysfs tree of all physical and 'virtual' (?) devices.

2) Optional feature to generate /dev with one simple script for those
   that want it, which should be the less complex option at initramfs
   time.

> If it works as is, don't screw with it.
> 

With an already populated /dev, sure :/


Thanks,

-- 
Martin Schlemmer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]