Re: (Semi-random) thoughts on device tree structure and devfs

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%tombi.co.jp@localhost>]

> Linux had a devfs and droped it. Now it has udevd(8). Most likely the
> penguins had a reason for this. udevd(8) gives the user land control
> over device enumeration. Maybe no bad idea. (Disclaimer: I don't like
> Linux.)

I took a little glance at OpenSolaris/FreeBSD devfs man pages, and quickly
stopped.  They're all overly complicated.

Those who complain about redundant device paths exposed should look at other
implementations.  I don't really like to have /etc/devfsd.conf and bikeshed
its format.

Exposing device tree works, because NetBSD's hardware device abstraction is
done pretty much sanely (software abstraction has problems, tho).

> BTW: OSF/1 aka DEC-Unix aka Tru64-Unix did somthing like Linux +
> udevd(8) over 10 years ago.

Good point.  We're hopelessly behind.

Masao

-- 
Masao Uebayashi / Tombi Inc. / Tel: +81-90-9141-4635