From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265566AbTLIMyY (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:54:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265555AbTLIMyX (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:54:23 -0500 Received: from stingr.net ([212.193.32.15]:31184 "EHLO stingr.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265567AbTLIMyS (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:54:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:54:14 +0300 From: Paul P Komkoff Jr To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: State of devfs in 2.6? Message-ID: <20031209125414.GQ30105@stingr.net> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200312081536.26022.andrew@walrond.org> <200312081559.04771.andrew@walrond.org> <20031208233840.GD31370@kroah.com> <200312091037.20770.andrew@walrond.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312091037.20770.andrew@walrond.org> User-Agent: Agent Darien Fawkes X-Mailer: Intel Ultra ATA Storage Driver X-RealName: Stingray Greatest Jr Organization: Department of Fish & Wildlife Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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