Posted May 8, 2009 11:24 UTC (Fri) by pli (subscriber, #45060)
Parent article: The return of devfs
The day devfs was removed from mainline was a sad day. Yes, the devfs implementation had its problems, some major ones, but those could have been fixed (and were fixed by e.g. mini-devfs but was never merged). The whole thing about letting the kernel dynamically manage /dev is a sound, elegant and proven strategy. The udev debacle has been a mess from day one and now they want to save their crappy idea by re-introducing a semi-half-devfs that is in fact a udev-helper-devfs, with some terribly odd and confusing device node life-cycle handling. Part of me is happy though, because the udev people realize that this should be done in the kernel, but I'm worried that this is just a continuation of the udev madness.
I hope the submission of devtmpfs can restart the general devfs-discussion and lead to the implementation of a real and proper devfs (e.g. let's start from mini-devfs) so that we once and for all can leave udev behind us.