Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

Helge Hafting
2004-09-08T09:04:50Z

Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@hist.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it
>>>would have to be the only /dev filesystem.
>>>But no, we like choices, so we have chaos.
>>>Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos.
>>>
>>>Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that
>>>thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions.
>>>One fs for /dev. And it works great.
>>>
>>>Sorry for bit of trolling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it
>>was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it.
>>No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same
>>job, and more.
>>
>>
>
>udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is
>at least silly.
>
>
Well, devfs had devfsd - a userspace tool . . .

>I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace
>daemon. But FS is out of question the least one.
>
>I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs.
>
I believe it had soemthing to do with the design - in order
to fix it you had to rewrite it almost from scratch. People
work on whatever they want to, and devfs wasn't it.

>Maybe because people
>didn't want to go to devfs only. But still to have classic /dev. It's
>also silly, because person writing driver needs to choose between, or
>implement all. That's more than bad. Once I have loads of time, and no
>work in KDE, I can take over devfs happily :-)
>
>
Go ahead! Perhaps you get it right. Then you'll have to
convince users of udev (or plain old /dev) that your way is better.

Helge Hafting