[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Request for comments (kdev_t and friends...)
    Oliver Xymoron writes:
    > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Richard Gooch wrote:
    > > Oliver Xymoron writes:
    > > > In fact, we should add at least a void *private so that devices can
    > > > be freed of managing their instance data with static arrays indexed
    > > > off minor number.
    > >
    > > With devfs this is really clean. A driver can allocate an instance
    > > structure at probe time, and pass the pointer to devfs_register().
    > > When the device node is opened, file->private_data is initialised with
    > > that pointer. So the driver open() method already has a handle to the
    > > device instance structure, without any lookups being required.
    > That part of the scheme is good, but I'm still not convinced the
    > lookup is a big deal. To open a file, you still end up doing a
    > lookup that matches name to device (ie a dentry hash
    > lookup). There's no reason opening a device couldn't use a similarly
    > fast (or even identical!) method without requiring that the /dev dir
    > be managed inside the kernel. In fact, I think I earlier suggested
    > it's possible to cache the lookup in the inode.

    I'm not saying the extra lookup is going to make all the difference in
    the world. However:

    - one less lookup is always going to be faster

    - devfs is cleaner (which is what matters more to me)

    - why have an extra lookup when there is a simpler, cleaner method?



    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:13.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site