Re: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfsmaintenance disaster

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:59:16 +0100
Scott James Remnant <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 19:47 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > > I don't really see the issue here.  If Arjan doesn't want to use
> > > devtmpfs for Moblin, he doesn't have to.
> > 
> > my biggest objection was to the use of boot time as argument.
> > That was and still is deceiving and false. There may be other
> > arguments for devfs, but I'm not going to get in the middle of
> > those. But boot time isn't it.
> > 
> Right, I don't disagree.
> 
> For some distributions devtmpfs allows them to do things without
> running udev early; we long ago restructured Ubuntu so that udev is
> one of the first things we run, therefore don't have that particular
> problem.
> 
> From my POV devtmpfs is useful because it means we can do away with
> udev entirely in certain situations, especially the installer and
> probably our initramfs when we need one too.
> 
> The "statically make /dev from /sys" tools don't help, because /dev
> needs to be kept up to date.  And udev is too heavy, or the increased
> maintenance of having a special installer udev is too annoying, etc.

hmmm I don't see our udev to be heavy in Moblin
(but that is after we do the sysfs->dev step)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/