Messages in this thread | | >>> Laugh. Think 'caching' which is done right now for the current >>> scheme. Even 1000 people logged in for 2000 inodes is a trivial >>> number of inodes. >> >> Hmmm, a 64 kB /dev with linear ext2 searching. Ouch. >> But that isn't as bad as it gets when you add SCSI. > > You clearly don't understand what's going on here. The directory > search is _only_ done for a filename lookup. I.e. at the moment, only > when someone logs in. After that the tty is referenced by > inode. Updates are in-memory, and at very very low cost.
I expect people will want to log in.
You would slow down: lilo, most procps tools, svgalib apps, telnetd, xterm, screen, emacs, and many shell scripts. It is bad enough with 256 pty pairs, SCSI partitions, etc.
>>> Posix complient means nothing. Go and see what you actually need to >>> make posix. It's bugger all. Certainly not a terribly useful system. >>> >>> pty's aren't minimal posix to start with, ditto devices! >> >> Yes, which is why an NTFS system requires a devfs. I guess you agree. > > Why stop at devices? What about unix pipes? what about hard links? > The fact that NTFS is missing a bunch of features means NTFS has a > problem. Why muck up the rest of the kernel because of NTFS > limitations.
Get a clue about NTFS. It isn't missing a bunch of features. The only thing missing is /dev support.
> As a sanity check: How many people would seriously want to > run NTFS as root filesystem?
I see, _you_ don't need it so screw everyone else. Answer 'N' in the kernel config and ignore us weirdos.
>>> This isn't an argument for devfs. This is an argument for a larger >>> dev_t size. Before you can claim this as a reason for building a >>> devfs, you need to detail exactly how a devfs is magically going to >>> fix the above problem. >> >> Sanity check time! Let's see if your "fix" would work. >> >> bus 4 bits >> unit 8 bits >> LUN 8 bits >> partition 6 bits >> raw/cook/etc 2 bits >> >> Fine, /dev will be 4 to 8 GB. The linear search will be fun! >> Seriously, a larger dev_t will _not_ fix this problem. > > This is truely nonsense. You don't need to create every possible > device. Even in the current scheme, most people don't have a > /dev/sdf* in there.
Really? Most people run RedHat AFAIK, which makes /dev/sdf*.
I have that device. Since ext2 directories do not get compacted, there is no reason to remove the device without a full backup, removal, and restore of /dev. That means a boot floppy.
Distributions need to include such devices so that people won't call tech support and complain.
> You create the devices you need. It isn't terrible hard!
Now you are torturing newbies. Actually, great hackers shouldn't have to bother with that either. It is a waste of their time.
> ptys need a better fix than a devfs kludge. They don't really > belong in the device space anyway, more the unix pipe space.
Interesting. Propose a solution that won't violate standards. You need to support ptsname() and ttyname(). Without a devfs, you might need an ugly hack in /proc. Eeew.
| |