Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:22:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 13:52 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:55:45PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's
> > > > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently
> > > > are living with[2].
> > > >
> > > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if
> > > > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3].  If you do that, it does
> > > > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/
> > > >
> > > > If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to
> > > > reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines.  As an example, if we
> > > > drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default
> > > > kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs.  I've done this on
> > > > my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like
> > > > everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink
> > > > anyway.)
> > > >
> > > > So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming
> > > > scheme in this manner?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fine with me.  I assume we will need to keep the rcscript support for
> > > those die-hard 2.4 users still, but hopefully we can eventually drop
> > > that as well.
> >
> > What rcscript support?
> >
>
> Err, sorry, all the crap in /sbin/rc ...

Heh, yes.  While looking in there, I was wondering if anyone would
object to splitting the udev and devfs stuff out of the main rc script,
like other parts have been split out?  That way I could bundle the udev
portions in the udev package and then keep them up to date (like the
"save modified device nodes logic") ?

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list