Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:54:14 +0300 | From | Paul P Komkoff Jr <> | Subject | Re: State of devfs in 2.6? |
| |
Replying to Andrew Walrond: > My initial query has thrown up lots of interesting debate :) > > I, like most people I suspect, love the concept of a complete auto-populated > dev directory, and not having to MAKEDEV. > > devfs provided this, but like most people who read LKML, I stopped using it > when it's problems were discussed. > > I really hope udev lives up to its promise, unlike devfs. Manually creating / > dev just annoys me for no apparent reason other than it's plain inelegance I > suppose.
The one of main benefits I considered when focusing my attention on devfs-like approach is space consumption. Somewhat-populated dev subdirectory (looking at fedora 1) have about 7k items inside, each of them eating its inode and (depends on underlying fs) a block.
I agree that previous implementation may be racy, domb, gooched, whatever. but is it sane that for system to function correcly I should carry over a whole bunch of directory entries, when I actually have all information about it in kernel, somewhere buried under major-minor declarations.
That is, udev backed on tmpfs approach are almost solving our problem. But not completely. Module autoloading is useful, actually, was useful in conjunction with module unloading - if unloading support is poor autoloading is almost useless ...
-- Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key <- my pgp key This message represents the official view of the voices in my head - 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/
| |