Georgi Georgiev wrote:
I see there is something that obviously I had not understood for a
long time,
so....
Aren't symlinks the responsibility of the devfsd daemon?
Some are, yes. Those designed to emulate older /dev entries are the
responsbility of _some_ userspace application, usually devfsd.
A system with mounted /dev and NOT having devfsd running, has no
symlinks in /dev, does it? Short of stdin, stdout etc I guess.
Not at all; my main server uses devfs and does not even have devfsd
installed. All the normal devfs entries are there, include /dev/discs,
/dev/cdroms, etc.
Is this something I am completely confused about? I figured a long
time ago,
that when I am the only one with a different opinion, it is usually
so, because
I am wrong. But, please, explain.
Yes, you are mistaken :-) However, if this is in reference to the recent
discussion about mounting root filesystems and not having "short" /dev
paths available, this is where the confusion comes from.
For some reason, the /dev _namespace_ inside the kernel is a distinct
entity from the devfs _filesystem_ that normally gets mounted on /dev.
All the /dev _namespace_ entries appear in the devfs filesystem, but
also there are many symlinks to make things easier to use. I don't know
if those symlinks are visible in the /dev namespace inside the kernel,
but I think not since many people have trouble using them as arguments
to the "root=" kernel parameter.
|