From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 15:21:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 15:21:18 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:26051 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 15:21:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 13:21:10 -0600 Message-Id: <200205071921.g47JLAV00682@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Patrick Mochel Cc: , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Padraig Brady , Anton Altaparmakov , Martin Dalecki , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.14 IDE 56 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Patrick Mochel writes: > > On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard Gooch wrote: > > > Patrick Mochel writes: > > > Oh, and it's with a modern, clean filesystem, 1/5 the size of devfs. > > > > The size argument is not an issue. I've already said that devfs will > > shrink a lot once I move tree management from my own code to the VFS. > > I agree 100%. However, I think that move will be very painful. I > tried to do it a couple of months ago, and there were so many > interdependencies and oddities that I gave up after about 6 hours. Oh, it's certainly more that 6 hours of work. But it *will* get done. > > At that point devfs will mostly be: > > - an API > > - a way fo supporting the devfsd protocol. > > I argue that you shouldn't need a separate daemon. We already have > the /sbin/hotplug interface. It's simple and sweet. We shouldn't > need to rely on an entirely separate daemon. The devfsd protocol is more lightweight. Plus it doesn't require fork(2)+execve(2) overheads. And more importantly, you can capture lookup() events. Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca