lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: udev sysfs docs Re: State of devfs in 2.6?
Date
Witukind <witukind@nsbm.kicks-ass.org> writes:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:33:24 +0100
> mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
>
>> Witukind <witukind@nsbm.kicks-ass.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:39:32 +0100 mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Is there a specific case for which people want this feature?
>> >> > Offhand it seems like a slightly odd thing to ask for...
>> >>
>> >> I believe the original motivation for module autoloading was to
>> >save> memory by unloading modules when their devices were unused.
>> >Loading> them automatically on demand made for less trouble for
>> >users, who> didn't have to run modprobe manually to use the sound
>> >card, or> whatever. This could still be a good thing in embedded
>> >systems.>
>> >
>> > I don't see why it wouldn't be a good thing for regular systems
>> > also. Saving memory is usually a good idea.
>>
>> The biggest modules are about 100k. Saving 100k of 1 GB doesn't
>> really seem worth any effort.
>
> I don't have 1 Gb of memory. On my laptop with 16 mb RAM saving 100k
> is worth the effort.

In that case I don't classify your laptop as a regular system any
more. I remember saying that the space saving could be worthwhile on
small systems a while back.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.118 / U:5.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site