lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: dev
    Date
    > I'm insterested in the idea of this so-called 'devfs', which I believe
    > to be already implemented in FreeBSD (any comments on that implementation).

    Only one: Why the hell is it in the kernel ?

    > 1. Number of entries. I've just looked at my system and I have well over
    > 650 entries and I have nothing special on system.

    All taking no data blocks. Relax. You can also prune them down if it
    worries you

    > 2. Many unused entries. A standard setup will create many entries, even
    > though you don't need them. Having unused entries affects the lookup of
    > /dev.

    Microscopically (if you dont believe me apply the cache profiling patch)

    > 3. When accessed, the atime on the /dev file will be updated. This means
    > that when null, zero etc. is used, an update of the atime is required,
    > this may not cause a significant impact, however, the atime on the /dev
    > file does not provide any useful information. There is currently a

    Its used by things like lastlogin, by some security monitors etc

    > - Kernel bloating.
    >
    > This is the only reason I've seen against the idea of the devfs, and this is
    > certainly an issue to be concerned with. Although I've used the term devfs,
    > It doesn't mean a completely different FS to procfs but more likely a integral
    > part of it.

    If you ignore the IMHO bogus atime argument in your list you can do the
    rest in userspace and build /dev from a master /devices or similar. We
    don't need a kernel module for it.

    Alan


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:2.603 / U:0.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site