Kay Sievers <kay@xxxxxxxx> writes: > If that works out, it would a bit like devtmpfs which turned out to be > very simple, reliable and absolutely the right thing we could do to > primarily mange /dev content. ROFL. There are still quite a few interesting cases that devtmpfs does not even think about supporting. Cases that were reported when devtmpfs was being reviewed. Additionally the devtmpfs maintainership has not dealt with legitimate concerns any better than this firmware issue has been dealt with. I still haven't even hear a productive suggestion back on the hole /dev/ptmx mess. As it happens devtmpfs wound up being a userspace process that happens to reside in the kernel and call mknod. How it makes sense two layers of messaging and device management instead of just one I don't know. Certainly I would not crow about that being a success of anything except passing the buck. There is debacle written all over the user space interface for dealing with devices right now. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
