Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Then why so much hate at devtmpfs? It's certainly not mandatory and it's useful for a wide class of users. Its source code is simple and short (yeah, it probably should be moved to /fs directory).
I kinda don't understand what criteria you're applying to 'good' vs. 'bad' design. I suspect it mostly is "if it makes someone's life easier than it's a bad design".
Hostility in plain sight
Posted Dec 19, 2012 4:36 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872)
Posted Dec 19, 2012 5:05 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
>2) devtmpfs problems include being extremely sloppy piece of code, both at the moment of inclusion and later, despite fixes of some of the problems
What exactly is lousy there? It's a small 450-line skeleton FS. There's nothing complicated going on there.
Can you be even less specific?
> 3) sufficiently recent udev *does* make devtmpfs mandatory. As you very well know.
Ah, I've been using udev-172 on my devices. Looks like it's time to upgrade, I'm glad they're now relying on devtmpfs.
You can easily re-add support for new node creation in udev. But why bother? What exactly are you planning to achieve that way?
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds