[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1d45oxsrk.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:54:39 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartmann <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster
> I don't understand. Udev applies the final policy including
> permissions/ownership, just as before. There is no differrence. It's
> just that you can bring up a box without complex userspace to
> bootstrap /dev. And that's a big win on its own.
udev is too complex to use? That sounds like a userspace bug.
This I guess is where I am baffled. The argument for devtmpfs
always seem to boil down to: udev sucks let's write some kernel
code instead.
I have been trying to ask for a long time why we can't just fix
udev to not suck.
> And things like
> "modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0" will just work, which it doesn't
> with todays async udev. Again, please make yourself familiar how
> things work, and what the problems are.
I guess I don't understand why
modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0 is an interesting case.
When you can just as easily do:
modprobe loop; udevadm settle; losetup /dev/loop0.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists