From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263016AbVFXPRp (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:17:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263008AbVFXPRo (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:17:44 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:5336 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262985AbVFXPQd (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:16:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:16:15 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Michael Tokarev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ndevfs - a "nano" devfs Message-ID: <20050624151615.GA29854@kroah.com> References: <20050624081808.GA26174@kroah.com> <42BBFB55.3040008@tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42BBFB55.3040008@tls.msk.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 04:23:49PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: I'll respond to your comments later, it's too early... > A question. I can't apply this to 2.6.12, it fails in > drivers/base/class.c -- the main portion i think. What's > this patch against? 2.6.12-git5, sorry I should have mentioned that. > And another question. Why it isn't possible to use > plain tmpfs for this sort of things? What do you mean? What's wrong with a ramfs based fs? To use tmpfs would require a lot more work. But if you want to do it, I'll gladly take patches :) > Why to create another filesystem, instead of just using current > tmpfs and call mknod/unlink on it as appropriate? Um, that's about all that this code does. > This same tmpfs can be used by udev too (to create that "policy"-based > names), and it gives us all the directories and other stuff... udev doesn't need a kernel specific fs. thanks, greg k-h