[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: devfs: The conclusion.
Followup to:  <>
By author: Pal-Kristian Engstad <>
In newsgroup:
> 1.) devfs is conceptually cleaner, in that the kernel devices
> control such things as major and minor device numbers.

I for one think it is not clean at all. I think it is a
Microsoft-like path-of-least-resistance hack.

> 2.) devfs reduces the number of devices in /dev to a minimum, thus
> reducing a number of inodes and some hard-disk and RAM. This
> has also the advantage that it is easy to determine which
> devices are in the system.

It stores *ALL* its inodes in RAM, whereas an on-disk /dev never
brings them in if they aren't actively used.

> 3.) devfs optionally introduces a new naming scheme, preferred by
> some linux administrators.

Not something specific to devfs. scsidev has done this for ages.

> 4.) devfs also makes it possible to mount your root on other
> filesystems, like e.g. a CD-ROM or a non-unix filesystem.

You can do that anyway.

> 5.) devfs is also claimed to be faster, in that you do not have to
> go to an external device to get major and minor device numbers.

This speed difference is at the best very slight, and might just as
well be a lose due to the loss of additional kernel RAM. Any device
used with any frequency is going to be cached in the VFS anyway.

PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
See for web page and full PGP public key
I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see
"To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables

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 13:43    [W:0.066 / U:9.456 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site