diff options
| author |   greg@kroah.com <greg@kroah.com> | 2003-12-31 00:28:05 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer |   Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> | 2005-04-26 21:13:12 -0700 |
| commit | 1237229594bf02f63922e481462efe0dae4294e4 (patch) | |
| tree | e7db6be307eedc0cd7a39e73c1023e0b61c4e50b | |
| parent | [PATCH] added udev vs devfs supid document to the tree. (diff) | |
| download | systemd-1237229594bf02f63922e481462efe0dae4294e4.tar.gz systemd-1237229594bf02f63922e481462efe0dae4294e4.tar.bz2 systemd-1237229594bf02f63922e481462efe0dae4294e4.zip | |
[PATCH] minor change to udev_vs_devfs document.
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/udev_vs_devfs | 4 |
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/docs/udev_vs_devfs b/docs/udev_vs_devfs index 5a46231c1..17853f881 100644 --- a/docs/udev_vs_devfs +++ b/docs/udev_vs_devfs @@ -108,7 +108,9 @@ Nice, 7 out of 7 for udev. Makes you think the problems and constraints were picked by a udev developer, right? No, the problems and constraints are ones I've seen over the years and so udev, along with the kernel driver model and sysfs, were created to solve these real -problems. +problems. I also have had the luxury to see the problems that the +current devfs implementation has, and have taken the time to work out +something that does not have those same problems. So by just looking at the above descriptions, everyone should instantly realize that udev is far better than devfs and start helping out udev |