Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:20:53PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
> > FWIW, I'm running udev on my laptop without problems (kernel 2.6.2), but I'm
> > not running it on my desktop boxes. I plan to continue to use 2.4-series
> > kernels on one of them, but I'd quite like to run 2.6.x+udev on the other;
> > however, devfs it is for now because the DVB drivers don't yet support sysfs.
> Maybe not, but they work fine with static device nodes (gasp!).
> I don't think the script to create them is packaged, but it's in the
> source for dvb-utils IIRC, called MAKEDEV.napi or similar.
> I suppose static /dev is unfashionable yet surprisingly functional.
> I never did see a reason to try devfs.
1. Read only / systems need /dev in a ramdisk or devfs. That means
either wasting ram on a huge /dev or selectivly only putting needed
device nodes into /dev. Having the kernel mount devfs on boot (or via
fstab) is just way simpler.
2. usb device need dynamic nodes
3. only available device node, less clutter
4. structured layout, easy to find devices or to use tab completion
The first 3 apply to udev in general too, the last only to a devfs
PS: also with devfs scsi devices are at fixed positions and don't
change their name depending on what scsi devices (like external cd
burner) are on or off currently.