[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] devfs v196 available

    On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:

    > Hi, all. Version 196 of my devfs patch is now available from:

    Some small comments:
    - You should consider to integrate devfs into the dcache (check e.g.
    ramfs), currently you duplicate lots of infrastructure, which you get
    for free (and faster) from the dcache. It would save you also lots of
    - you should delay the path generation in try_modload to the read
    function, then you're not limited here in the pathname length and don't
    have to abuse the stack.
    - you should use "%.*s" if you want to print a dentry name (no need to
    copy it).
    - you should do something about the recursive calls, it's an invitation to
    abuse them.
    - symlink/slave handling of tapes/disk/cdroms is maybe better done in
    - uid/gid in devfsd_buf_entry is 16 bit
    - devfs is not a database! E.g. devfs has no business to store the
    char/block device ops table. So devfs_get_ops is wrong here, the same
    for devfs_[gs]et_info. devfs has to stay optional and storing/retrieving
    certain device data should not be done in different ways, this is only
    asking for trouble because of subtle differences. The problem so far is
    that we have no [bc]dev_t, where this info should be stored, but this
    hopefully changes early 2.5. So the path to get e.g. to the ops table
    should be "kdev_t -> [bc]dev_t -> ops" and not "kdev_t -> search whole
    devfs tree -> no ops" (because you missed manual dev nodes).
    - the simple event mechanism looks prone to DOS attacks (even if all races
    are gone). Events are too easily delayed or even dropped. This makes
    the events unreliable and unsuitable for any serious use.
    - in _devfs_make_parent_for_leaf you shouldn't simply return if
    _devfs_append_entry fails, because someone else might have created the
    directory since _devfs_descend.

    Especially the first point is very important, this was even suggested by
    Linus already more than 3 years ago. devfs could be a very thin layer, but
    right now it's far bigger than it had to be.

    bye, Roman

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.029 / U:4.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site