Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758734AbZIQRrl (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:47:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755233AbZIQRrj (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:47:39 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:44366 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754468AbZIQRri (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:47:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:47:25 +0200 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Scott James Remnant Cc: Alan Cox , Kay Sievers , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster Message-ID: <20090917194725.355b761c@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1253205332.4718.9.camel@quest> References: <20090917141303.428fe73c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1253205332.4718.9.camel@quest> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1671 Lines: 45 On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:35:32 +0100 Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 14:13 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > * A static dev is faster. > > > > > > A static /dev is unreliable and unpredictable, and can not be > > > used in any not very limited and controlled environment. It's > > > pure theory for > > > > Moblin appears to be the fastest boot and doesn't use it. I fact > > Arjan seems pretty anti > > > And of the "ordinary" distros, Ubuntu has the fastest boot and we are > very keen to use devtmpfs, and I am very pro. personally I consider Moblin an ordinary distro. > > 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. I do share frustration with Eric on how Kay and Greg have handled this. It really felt like a combination of bullying, ignoring any contrarian argument and just ramming stuff down. Not at all unlike the original devfs fiasco. It has left me with a pretty bad taste in my mouth and am pretty disappointed; I expected better. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/