summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/docs
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorgreg@kroah.com <greg@kroah.com>2003-12-31 00:28:05 -0800
committerGreg KH <gregkh@suse.de>2005-04-26 21:13:12 -0700
commit1237229594bf02f63922e481462efe0dae4294e4 (patch)
treee7db6be307eedc0cd7a39e73c1023e0b61c4e50b /docs
parent3310f9d0e8a585c4b96d558a34b06b47699586b1 (diff)
[PATCH] minor change to udev_vs_devfs document.
Diffstat (limited to 'docs')
-rw-r--r--docs/udev_vs_devfs4
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/docs/udev_vs_devfs b/docs/udev_vs_devfs
index 5a46231c1f..17853f881f 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