| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's |
| 3 |
> time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently |
| 4 |
> are living with[2]. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if |
| 7 |
> you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does |
| 8 |
> not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to |
| 11 |
> reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we |
| 12 |
> drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default |
| 13 |
> kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on |
| 14 |
> my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like |
| 15 |
> everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink |
| 16 |
> anyway.) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming |
| 19 |
> scheme in this manner? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Next up, that loony block device naming scheme (more on that later...) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> thanks, |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> greg k-h |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Sorry to only reply to this now, but i saw a mail of you talking about |
| 28 |
ndevfs. will that go into 2.6.13? not that i use devfs, 'cause i don't, |
| 29 |
i'm just curious. |
Archives