|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Greg KH <greg-AT-kroah.com> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH] driver-core: devtmpfs - driver core maintained /dev
|| ||Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:43:12 -0700|
|| ||Kay Sievers <kay.sievers-AT-vrfy.org>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:17:01 -0700 Greg KH <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:29:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:23:42 +0200 Kay Sievers <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > From: Kay Sievers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Subject: driver-core: devtmpfs - driver core maintained /dev tmpfs
> > >
> > > Devtmpfs lets the kernel create a tmpfs very early at kernel
> > > initialization, before any driver core device is registered. Every
> > > device with a major/minor will have a device node created in this
> > > tmpfs instance. After the rootfs is mounted by the kernel, the
> > > populated tmpfs is mounted at /dev. In initramfs, it can be moved
> > > to the manually mounted root filesystem before /sbin/init is
> > > executed.
> > Lol, devfs.
> Well, devfs "done right" with hopefully none of the vfs problems the
> last devfs had. :)
I think Adam Richter's devfs rewrite (which, iirc, was tmpfs-based)
would have fixed up these things. But it was never quite completed and
came when minds were already made up.
I don't understand why we need devfs2, really. What problems are
people having with teh existing design?
> > > block/bsg.c | 6
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_sysfs.c | 7
> > > drivers/input/input.c | 6
> > > drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dvbdev.c | 10 +
> > > drivers/usb/core/usb.c | 11 +
> > These five subsystems were updated, but there are so many others. Why
> > these five in particular?
> These are the ones that create a subdirectory in /dev/ None of the
> others do.
Where is it determined that these subsystems create /dev subdirectories?
udev rules? If so, do we need to henceforth keep devfs2 (sorry, I
can't resist) in sync with udev?
to post comments)