Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

Greg KH
2004-09-03T10:58:19Z

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:14:51AM +0200, Grzegorz Ja??kiewicz wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@hist.no> wrote:
> > Grzegorz Ja??kiewicz 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.

I have never heard of a program called "udef". Any pointers to it? :)

If it's such a big mistake, then don't use it. No one is forcing you
to.

> I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace
> daemon. But FS is out of question the least one.

It's not a daemon (although to make things a bit easier on itself, it
does provide one by default, but some distros don't use it.) It just
creates device nodes when the kernel finds a new device, with a name
that you pick. Which is something that an in-kernel devfs can not do.

> I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs. 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 :-)

Well, until you do that, baseless criticism and trolling like this will
be ignored.

greg k-h