From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:34:14 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC 3/6] system: add mdev-only /dev management (without devtmpfs) In-Reply-To: <87k2rrvqlh.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1441747734-18730-1-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <1441747734-18730-4-git-send-email-luca@lucaceresoli.net> <55EFF9FF.1020402@mind.be> <55F02630.5050500@lucaceresoli.net> <20150909155427.53f9c8b5@free-electrons.com> <87bnd43eph.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20150914233402.3575da80@free-electrons.com> <87zj0oznp2.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20150915093030.622d2366@free-electrons.com> <87zj0oumrg.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20150915114159.758baca9@free-electrons.com> <87k2rrvqlh.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <55F89CE6.4070004@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Peter, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >> But I still need to be convinced that adding this other mdev variant is > >> the best tradeoff between: > >> > >> - Adding the patches > >> > >> - Ask people to backport devtmpfs to their kernel > >> > >> - Ask people to handle it in a post-build script > >> > >> - Ask people to add a initramfs mounting a tmpfs on /dev + mknod before > >> executing init > >> > >> - Asking people to stick with user space of the same "maturity" ;) as > >> their kernel > > Or alternatively, extend the S10mdev logic to detect that it need to > create a tmpfs on /dev (by looking for devtmpfs in /proc/filesystems or > detecting that /dev is RO) and have all the fixup there. That way it > atleast doesn't add any more complications to the rest of Buildroot / > users. Indeed another interesting option. I'll consider it, thanks. -- Luca